£\ht<xvy oftrheCheolo0ical^mimvyPRINCETON • NEW JERSEY

PRESENTED BY

The John M* Krebsdonation

B52385

V. I

2opyn

SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

SYNONYMS

THE NEW TESTAMENT;

THE SUBSTAXCE OF A COURSE OF

LECTURES ADDRESSED TO THE THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS,

king's college, LONDON.

RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, B. D,

PROFESSOR OF DIYINITY, KIXg's COLLEGE, LO>T)OX;

AUTHOR OF "the STUDY OF WORDS," " THE LESSONS IN

PROVERBS," ETC., EIC.

REDFIELD,110 AND 112 NASSAU STREET, NEW YOEK.

185 4.

PREFACE.

This little volume lias grown out of a short

course of lectures on the synonyms of the XewTestament, which, in the fulfilment of my duties as

Professor of Divinity at King's College, I have

more than once addressed to the theological students

there. It seemed to me that lectures on such a

subject might help, in however partial a measure,

to supply a want, of which many of the students

themselves are probably conscious, of which those

who have to do with their training cannot help

being aware. The long, patient and exact studies

in philology of our great schools and universities,

which form so invaluable a portion of their mental,

and, I will add, of their moral discipline also, can

find no place during the two years or two years and

a half of the theological course at King's College.

The time itself is too short to allow this, and it is

6 PEEFACE.

in great part claimed by other and more pressing

studies. Some, indeed, ^Ye rejoice to find, come to

ns possessing this knowledge in a very respectable

degree already ; while of others much more than

this can be said. Yet where it does not already

exist, it is qnite impossible that it can be more than

in part supplied. At the same time we feel the loss

and the deficiency ; we are sometimes conscious of

it even in those who go forth from ns with general

theological acquirements, which would bear a fa-

vourable comparison with the acquirements of those

trained in older institutions. It is a matter of re-

gret, when in papers admirable in all other respects,

errors of inexact scholarship are to be found, which

seem quite out of keeping with the amount of in-

telligence, and the standard of knowledge, whicli

every where else they display.

Feeling the immense value of these studies, and

how unwise it would be, because we cannot liave

all which we would desire, to forego what is possi-

ble and within our reach, I have two or tliree times

dedicated a brief course of lectures to the compara-

tive value of words in the Kew Testament— and

these, with some subsequent additions and some

defalcations, have supplied the materials of the

present volume. I have never doubted that, set-

ting aside those higher and more solemn lessons,

which in a great measure are out of our reach to

PKEFACE. 7

impart, being to be tauglit rather by God than men,

there are few things which we should have more at

heart than to awaken in om' scholars an enthusiasm

for the grammar and the lexicon. We shall have

done much, very much for those who come to us

for theological training and generally for mental

guidance, if we can persuade them to have these

continually in their hands ; if we can make them

believe that with these, and out of these, they may

be learning more, obtaining more real and lasting

acquisitions, such as will stay by them, such as will

form a part of the texture of their own minds for

ever, that they shall from these be more effectually

accomplishing themselves for their future work,

than from many a volume of divinity, studied be-

fore its time, even if it were worth studying at all,

crudely digested, and therefore turning to no true

nourishment of the inner man.

But having now ventured to challenge for these

lectures a somewhat wider audience than at first

they had, it may be permitted to me to add here a

very few observations on the value of the study of

synonyms, not any longer considered in reference

to our peculiar needs, but generally ; and on that

of the synonyms of the Xew Testament in particu-

lar ; as also on the helps to this study which are at

present in existence.

The value of tliis study as a discipline for

8 PHEFACE.

training the mind into close and accurate habits of

thought, the amount of instruction which may be

drawn from it, the increase of intellectual wealth

wliich it may yield, all this has been implicitly

recognized by well-nigh all great writers— for well-

nigh all from time to time have paused, themselves

to play the dividers and discerners of words— ex-

plicitly by not a few who have proclaimed the

value which this study had in their eyes. And in-

structive as in any language it must be, it must be

eminently so in the Greek— a language spoken by

a people of the finest and subtlest intellect ; whosaw distinctions where others saw none ; who di-

vided out to difierent words what others often Avere

content to huddle under a common term ; who were

themselves singularly alive to its value, diligently

cultivating the art of synonymous distinction,* and

sometimes even to an extravagant excess ; * whohave bequeathed a multitude of fine and delicate

observations on the right distiuguishing of their

own words to the after world.

And while thus, with reference to all Greek,

the investigation of the likenesses and differences

of words appears especially invited by the charac-

teristic excellences of the language, in respect to

* The ov6ixaTa tiaipeiv, Plato, Laches, 197 d.

"^ Id. Protag. oil a b c.

PEEFACE. 9

the Greek of the ISTew Testament, plainly there are

reasons additional inviting ns to this study. If byit we become aware of delicate variations in an

autJior's meaning, which otherwise w^e might have

missed, where is it so desirable that we should not

miss anything, that we should lose no finer inten-

tion of the writer, than in those words which are

the vehicles of the very mind of God ? If it in-

creases the intellectual riches of the student, can

this anywhere be of so great importance as there,

where the intellectual may, if rightly used, j^rove

spiritual riches as well ? If it encourage thoughtful

meditation on the exact forces of words, both as

they are in themselves, and in their relation to other

words, or in any way unveil to us their marvel and

their mystery, this can nowhere else have a worth

in the least approaching that which it acquires

when the words with which we have to do are, to

those who receive them aright, words of eternal

life ; while out of the dead carcases of the same, if

men suffer the spirit of life to depart from tliem, all

manner of corruptions and heresies may be, as they

have been, bred.

The words of the Kew Testament are eminently

the aroL')(eia of Christian theology, and he who will

lot begin with a patient study of these, shall never

make any considerable, least of all any secure, ad-

vances in this : for here, as everywhere else, disap

1*

10 PREFACE.

poiiitmeiit awaits him who thinks to possess the

whole without first possessing the parts, of which

that whole is composed. l^o\v it is the very nature

and necessity of the investigation of synonyms to

compel such patient investigation of the forces of

words, such accurate weighing of their precise

value, absolute and relative, and in this its merits

as a mental discipline, consist.

Yet neither in respect of Greek synonyms in

general, nor specially in respect of those of the

New Testament, can it be afiirmed that we are even

tolerably furnished with books. Whatever there

may be to provoke occasional dissent in Doderlein's

Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen^ yet there

is no book on Greek synonyms which for compass

and completeness can bear comparison with it ; and

almost all the more important modern languages

of Europe have better books devoted to their syno-

nyms than any which has been devoted to the

Greek. The works of the early grammarians, as of

Ammonius and others, supply a certain amount of

important material, but cannot be said even remote-

ly to meet the needs of the student at the present

day. Yomel's Synonymisches Worterluch^ Frank-

furt, 1822, an admirable little volume as far as it

goes, but at the same time a school-book and no

more, and. Pillon's Synonymes Grecs^ of which a

translation into English was edited by the late

rin':FACK. 11

T. K. Arnold, London, 1850, are the only modern

attempts to supply the deficiency ; at least I amnot aware of any other. But neither of these wri-

ters has allowed himself space to enter on his sub-

ject w^th any fulness and completeness ; while the

references to the synonyms of the I^ew Testament

are exceedingly rare in Ycimel ; and though some-

what more frequent in Pillon's work, are capricious

and accidental there, and in general of a meagre

and unsatisfactory description.

The only book dedicated expressly and exclu-

sively to these is one written in Latin by J. A. H.

Tittman, De Synonymis in Novo Testamento^ Leip-

sic, 1829, 1832. It would ill become me, and I

have certainly no intention to speak slightingly of

the work of a most estimable man, and of a good

scholar— above all, when that work is one from

which I have occasionally derived assistance, such

as I most willingly acknowledge. Yet the fact

that we are oflering a book on the same subject as

a preceding author ; and may thus lie under, or seem

to others to lie under, the temptation of unduly

claiming for the ground which we would occupy,

that it is not occupied already ; this must not wholly

shut our mouths in respect of what appear to us

deficiencies or shortcomings on his ]3art. And this

work of Tittmann's seems to me still to leave room

for another on the subject of the synonyms of the

12 PREFACE.

New Testament. It sometimes travels very slowly

over its ground ; the synonyms which he selects for

discrimination cannot be esteemed always the most

interesting, nor, which is one of the most im]3ortant

things of all, are they always felicitously grouped

for investigation ; he often fails to bring out in sharp

and clear antithesis the differences between them;

while now and then the investigations of later

scholars have quite broken down the distinctions

which he has sought. to establish. Indeed the fact

that this book of Tittmann's, despite the interest

of its subject, and its standing alone upon it, not

to speak of its republication in England and in

English,' has never obtained any considerable cir-

culation among students of theology here, is itself

an evidence that it has not been felt to meet our

wants on the matter.

The work which is now offered, is, I am perfect-

ly aware, but a slight contribution to the subject

—

small in respect of the number of synonyms con-

sidered,'^ which might easily have been doubled or

* Biblical Cabinet, vols. iii. xxxvii. Edinburgh, 1833, 1837. It

must at the same time be owned that Tittmann has hardly had a

fair chance. Nothing can well be imagined more incorrect and

more slovenly than this translation. It is often unintelligible,

where the original is perfectly clear.

^ I have not thought it worth while to dispose these synou3-m3

in alplial)otical order. The fact that onl}'^ one in each pair or group,

PEEFACE. 13

trebled ; many of the most interesting having re-

mained untouched by me ; and also, as I am pain-

fully aware, with manifold deficiencies, most proba-

bly with some mistakes, even in the treatment of

these. The conclusions at which I have arrived

may rest sometimes on too narrow an induction : it

is possible that a larger knowledge would have com-

pelled me to modify or forego them altogether. I

can only say that I have not consciously passed

over any passages which would have made against

my distinction ; and that on this and any other sub-

ject in the volume I shall most gladly receive in-

struction and correction ; while yet, in conclusion,

I will not fear to add that, with all this, the book is

the result of enough of honest labour, of notices

not to be found ready to hand in Wetstein, or Gro-

tius, or Suicer, in German commentaries, or in lexi-

cons (though I have availed myself of all these),

but gathered one by one during many years, to

make me feel confident that any who shall hereafter

give a better and completer book on the subject,

will yet acknowledge a certain amount of assistance

derived from these preparatory labours.

Let me only add how deeply thankful I shall

can be arranged according to such law, renders the disposition

nearly, if not altogether, useless. On the other hand, I have

sought, by sufficient indexes, to assist the reader's references to the

book.

14r PREFACE.

be to Him who can alone prosper the work of our

hands, if my book, notwithstanding its deficiencies

and imperfections, shall be of any service to any in

leading them into a closer and more accurate inves-

tigation of Plis "Word, and of the riches of wisdom

and knowledge which are therein contained.

Itchenstoke, May, 1854:.

CONTENTS,

§ i.

—

^EiiK\7]ala, a-vvaycayr}, Travqyvpis

ii.—0e/oT7js, 6€6tt}s

iii.

—

Upov, vaos ....iv.

—

iTriTifj.da), i\iyx<» {alria, eAeyxos)

V.

—

a.m67]iJ.a, avaQ^jxa

vi.

—

Trpo(pr]T^vo}, fj.avTivo/xai

vli.

—

Tijxwpia, K6\a(ris

riii.

—

aKrjOrjs, uXtjOlvos .

ix.

—

depdirwv, SovAos, Biolkovos, yTTTjperrjs

X.

—

SeiXla, (po^os, evXd^eia

xi.

—

KaKia, TTovripla, KaKor}deia

xii.—a7a7ra«, (piXew

xiii.

—

OdXaa-aa, ireKayos

xiv.

—

(TKXripos, aucTT-qpos

-<' XV.

—

ciKwy, dixoiwcris, ofxoiw^ia .

xvi.

—

acrwrla, dtreAyeta

x\di.

—

diyydvw, airrofj-ai, ^r)\a<pda>

xviii.

—

TraXiyyeuea-'ia, avaKaipwcris

xix.

—

al^xvi^Vi otScoy

XX.—atScor, (TctKppoffvvr)

xxi.—(Tvpw, IA-kuw

.— xxii.

—

o\6K\r}pos, reKeios .

xxiii.

—

crrecpavos, didSrjfia

xxiv.

—

Tr\eov£^ia, (piXapyvpia .

XXV. fi6(TKW, TTOllXaivd)

xxvi.

—

C^Xo^, (pQovos

PAGB17

24

28

31

35

40

46

48

53

58

60

65

72

74

77 \

83

89

92.

98

102

105

108

112

117

120

124

16 CONTENTS.

§ xxvii,

—

(u3V, $ios ....xxviii.

—

Kvpioi, SecTfft^TTjs .

xxix,

—

a.\a(u)u, viri(n\<bavoSy v$pi(TTr]s

XXX.

—

avTixp^CTos, i|/euSoxP"'"''<'S

xxxi.

—

fjLoXvfw, maiuM

xxxii.—TraiSeto, vovdsaia .

xxxiii.

—

acpeais, vdpeais

xxxiv.

—

nwpoXoyia, ai(rxpo^o7ia, euTpaTreXto

XXXV.

—

Xarpevci}, KeiTovpyew

xxxvi.—7rej/7js, TTTWxo's

xxxvii.

—

dv/xos, opyv, ^apopyiafioi .

Xxxviii.

—

eKaiov, fxvpov (XP'^^j o.\ii<pw)

xxxix.—

'EjSpaTo?, 'louSatos, ^l(rpar}\iT7]s

xl.—atVeo), epwrdw

xli.

—

avdiravais, avecris

xlii.

—

TaTTeiuocppocTVPT), Trpadrrjs

xliii.—TrpaoTT}?, eTrieiKem

xliv.

—

KKfirrris, \r)aTT]s .

Xlv. TrKvvO}, I/ITTTO), \ovu "...xlvi.

—

(pws, (piyyos, <po}(rrr\p, Xvxvos, Xafiirds

xlvii.

—

X°-P^^' eXeo? .......xlviii.

—

Ofoffefiris, evffefirjs, evXa^rjs, Bpr^cTKOs, BiKTiSaifiwv

xlix.

—

KXrifjia, KXdSo<: ......1.

—

a. xP'O'^'^oTTii, ayaOuavvr]

)8. iXvls, TTlCTTtS

y. o-xiVjUo, a'lpecris

5. naKpoQvfjLia, Trpaorr^s

6. XoiSope'o), ^XaffcpTtfiew

^. ^^vx^K6s, (TapKlKOS

t], fxeravoeu), fierafieXo/JLai

6. alwv, Kofffios

t. irpavs, Tjavxios

K. 0J/7JTO9, VeKpOS

X. KoXaais, Tijj.ccpia

jx. &<p€ais, •JTo/jecris .

SYNOJ^YMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

g i.

—

'EKKXrjaLa, (Twaycoyi], 7ravrjyvpL<?.

'EKK\r)aia is one of those words whose liistory

it is peculiarly interesting to watch, as they obtain

a deeper meaning, and receive a new consecration

in the Christian Church ; which, even while it did

not invent, has yet assumed them into its service,

and employed them in a far loftier sense than any

to which the world had ever put them before.

The very word by which the Church is named is

itself an examj^le— a more illustrious one could

scarcely be found— of this gradual ennobling of a

word. For we have i/cKXTjala in three distinct

stages of meaning— the heathen, the Jewish, and

the Christian. In respect of the first, iKKXrjaia,

as all know, Vv^as the lawful assembly in a free

Greek city of all those possessed of the riglits of

18 SYNONYMS OF IHE

citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs.

That they were summoned is expressed in the latter

part of the word ; that they w^ere summoned out

of the whole population, a select portion of it, in-

cluding neither the poj^ulace, nor yet strangers, nor

those who had forfeited their civic rights, this is

expressed in the first. Both the calling^ and the

calling oict^ are moments to be remembered, when

the word is assumed into a higher Christian sense,

for in them the chief part of its peculiar adaptation

to its auguster uses lies.^ It is interesting to ob-

serve how, on one occasion in the New Testament,

the word returns to this its earlier significance

(Acts xix. 32, 39, 40).

'E/cK\rjaLa did not, like some other words, pass

immediately and at a single ste^D from the heathen

world to the Christian Church : but here, as so

^ Both these points are well made by Flacius Illyricus, iu his

Clavis Scripturce, s. v. Ecclesia: Quia Ecclesia a verbo kuKuv veuit,

hoc observetur piimum ; ideo couversionera hominuni vocationem

vocari, non tantura quia Deus eos per se suumque Verbum, quasi

clamore, vocat; sed etiam quia sicut herus ex turba. famulorum

certos aliquus ad aliqua singularia munia evocat, sic Deus quoque

turn totutn p()pulum suum vocat ad cultum suum (IIos. xi. 1) turn

etiam singulos homines ad certas singularesque functiones. (Act,

xiii. 2.) Quoniam autom non tantum vocatur Populus Dei ad cul-

tum Dei, sed etiam vocatur ex reliqua turba aut eonfusione generis

huniani, ideo aicitur Ecclesia, quasi dicas, Evocatii divinitus ex reli-

qufl impiorum colluvie, ad culiuui cclebratioucmque Dei, ot ceter-

nam felicitatem.

NEW TESTANIENT. ^19

often, the Septuagint supplies the link of connexion,

the point of transition, the word being there pre-

pared for its highest meaning of all. "When the

Alexandrian translators undertook the rendering: of

the Hebrew Scriptures, they found in them two

constantly recurring words, namely h^s and brip^.

For these they employed generally, and as their

most adequate Greek equivalents, awaycoyt] and

eicKkrjaia. The rule which they seem to have pre-

scribed to themselves is as follows— to render nn?

for the most part b}^ avvaywyn) (Exod. xii. 3 ; Lev.

iv. 13; I^umb. i. 2, and altogether more than an

hundred times), and whatever other renderings of

the word they may adopt, in no single case to ren-

der it by iKKXrjaia. It were to be wished that they

had shown the same consistency in respect of bnp;

but they have not ; for wliile iKKXriaia is their stand-

ing word for it (Deut. xviii. 16 ; Judg. xx. 2 ; 1 Kings

viii. 14, and in all some seventy times), they too

often render this also by avvaytoyr) (Lev. iv. 13

;

Xumb. x. -i ; Deut. v. 22, and in all some five and

twenty times), thus breaking down for the Greek

reader the distinction which undoubtedly exists be-

tween the words. Our English translation has the

same lack of a consistent rendering. Its two words

are ' congregation ' and ' assembly ;

' but instead of

constantly assigning one to one, and one to the

other, it renders m'i:' now by ' congregation ' (Lev.

20 SYNONYMS OF THE

X. 17 ; Numb. i. 16 ; Josh. ix. 27), and now by ' as-

sembly ' (Lev. iv. 13) ; and on the other hand, hnp

only sometimes by 'assembly' (Judg. xxi. 8; 2

Chron. xxx. 23), but much oftener by ' congrega-

tion ' (Judg. xxi. 5 ; Josh. viii. 35). There is an

interesting discussion by Yitringa {De Synag. Yet.

pp. 77—89) on the distinction between these two

Hebrew synonyms ; the result of which is summedup in the following statements : ISTotat proprie hrvp

universam alicujus populi multitudinem, vinculis

societatis unitam et rempublicam sive civitatem

quandam constituentem, cum vocabulum ms ex

indole et vi significationis suse tantum dicat quem-

cunque hominum coetum et conventum, sive mino-

rem sive majorem (p. 80). And again : ^vi^aycoyT],

ut et m:), semper significat ca^tum conjunctum et

congregatum, etiamsi nullo forte vinculo ligatum,

sed y iKKXrjala [= bnp] designat multitudinem ali-

quam, qu^e populum constituit, per leges et vincula

inter se junctam, etsi ssepe fiat ut non sit coacta vel

cogi possit (p. 88).

Accepting this as a true distinction, remember-

ing too the probable etymological connexion be-

tween hnp and the Greek KoXelv, and thus its rela-

tionship, once removed, with iKKXTjcria, as indeed

also with the old Latin ' calare,' and our own ' call,'

we shall see that it was not without due reason

that our Lord (Matt. xvi. 18 ; xviii. 17) and His

NEW TESTA MICXT. 21

Apostles claimed this, as the nobler word, to desig-

nate the new society of which He was the Fonnder,

being, as it was, a society knit together by the

closest spiritual bonds, and altogether independent

of space.

Yet for all this we do not find the title iKKXrjala

altogether withdrawn from the Jewish congrega-

tion ; that too was " the Church in the wilderness "

(Acts A'ii. 38) ; for Christian and Jewish differed

only in degree, and not in kind. Kor yet do we

find avvaycoy7J wholly renounced by the Church;

the latest honourable use of it in the JSTew Testa-

ment, indeed the only Christian use of it there, is

by that Apostle, to whom it was especially given to

maintain unbroken to the latest possible moment

the outward bonds connecting the Synagogue and

the Church (Jam. ii. 2). Occasionally also by the

early Fathers, by Ignatius for instance (^. ad

PoJyc. 4), we find avvaywyi] still employed as an

lionourable designation of the Church, or of her

places of assembly. Still there were causes at

work, which could not but induce the faithful to

liave less and less pleasure in the application of this

name to themselves ; which led them in the end to

leave it altogether to those, whom in the latest book

of the canon the Lord had characterized for their

fierce opposition to the truth even as " the syna-

gogue of Satan" (Eev. iii. 9). Thus the greater

22 SYNONYMS OF THE

fitness and nobleness of the title eKKXrjcrUi has been

already noted. Add to this that the Church was

ever rooting itself more predominantly in the soil

of heathendom, breaking off more entirely from its

Jewish stock and stem. This of itself wonld have

led the faithful to the letting fall of avva<ycDyy)^ a

word at once of nnfrequent nse in classical Greek,

and permanently associated with Jewish worship,

and to the ever more exclusive appropriation to

themselves of i/cKXyala, so familiar already, and of

60 honourable a significance, in Greek ears.

It will be perceived from what has been said,

that Augustine, by a piece of good fortune which

he had scarcely a right to expect, was only half in

the wrong, when transferring his Latin etymologies

to the Greek and Hebrew, and not pausing to ask

himself whether they would hold good there, as was

beforehand improbable enough, he finds the reason

for attributing avvaycoyr) to the Jevv^ish, and eKKXTj-

aia to the Christian Church, in the fact that ' con-

vocatio ' (== i/cK\7](Tla) is a nobler term than ' con-

gregatio ' (= avvaywyr}), the first being properly

the calling together of inen^ the second the gather-

ing together {congregation fi-om congrego^ and that

from grcdc) of cattle}

* Enarr. in Ps. Ixxxi. 1. In synagogS. populum Israel aecipi-

mus, quia et ipsorum proprio synagoga dici solet, quamvis et Ec-

clesia dicta sit. Nostri vero Ecclesiam nunqr.am synagogam dixe-

NEW TESTAMENT. 23

The 7rav}]yvpi^ differs from tlie eKKXrjala in this,

that in the €K/c\7]aria, as has been noted ah-eady,

there lay ever the sense of an assembly that had

come together for the transaction of business. Tlie

7ravy]yupi<;, on the other hand, was a great assembly

for purposes of festal rejoicing ; and on this account

it is found joined continually with iopr?], as by

Philo, Vit. Mas. ii. 7 ; Ezek. xlvi. 11 ; cf. Hos. ii.

11 ; ix. 5 ; the word having given us ' panegyric,'

which is properly a speech made on such an occa-

sion. Business might grow out of the fact that

such multitudes were assembled, since many, and

for various reasons, would be glad to avail them-

selves of the circumstance ; but only in the same

way as a 'fair' grew out of a 'feria,' or holy-day.

Strabo (x. 5) notices the business-like aspect which

the irav'q'yvpeL^ commonly assumed : tj re 7ravi]yvpL<;

ifjbiroptKov TV TTpajfjia : cf Pausanias, x. 32. 9 ; and

this was to such an extent the prominent character

of them, that the Eomans translated Travijyvpig by

the Latin 'mercatus,' and this even when the

runt, sed semper Eeclesiam: sive discernendi eaussa, sive quod

inter congregationem, unde synagoga, et convoeationem, unde Ec-

clesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid;quod scilicet congregaH et

pecora sclent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dici-

mus; convocari autem magis est utentium ratione, sicut sunt homi-

nes. So also the author of a Commentary on the Book of Proverbs

formerly ascribed to Jerome {0pp. vol. v. p. 533).

2J: SYNONYMS OF THE

3;Olympic games were intended (Cicero, Tusc. v.

Justin, xiii. 5). These with the other games were

eminently, though not exclusively, the iravT^yvpei^

of the Greek nation (Thucyd. i. 25). If we keep

this festal character of the iravi'^yvpi^ in mind, we

shall lind a peculiar fitness in the employment of

this Avord at Heb. xii. 23 ; where only in the ^ewTestament it occurs. The Apostle is there setting

forth the communion of the Church militant on

earth with the Church triumphant in heaven,

—

with that Church from which all labour and toil have

for ever passed away (Rev. xxi. 4) ; and how could

\\Q better describe this last than as a Travriyvpt^;, than

as the festal assembly of heaven ?

§ ii.

—

6€t6T7](;, OeoTT}^.

NErrHER of these words occurs more than once

in the l!^ew Testament : 6€l6t7)<; only at Rom. i. 20

;

OeoTT]^ at Col. ii. 9. We have rendered both by' Godhead ; ' yet they must not be regarded as iden-

tical in meaning, nor even as two different forms

of the same word, which in process of time have

separated off from one another, and acquired differ-

ent shades of significance. On the contrary, there

is a real distinction between them, and one which

NEW TESTAMENT. 25

grounds itself on their different derivations ; Oeorr]?

being from 0e6?, and ^etoV???, not from to delov,

which might be said to be the same thing as 6c6?,

but from the adjective Oeto^. Comparing the two

passages where they severally occur, we shall at

once j)erceive the fitness of the employment of one

word in one, of the other in the other. In the first

(Rom. i. 20), St. Paul is declaring how much of

God may be known from the revelation of Himself

which He has made in nature, from those vestiges

of Himself which men may everywhere trace in

the world around them. Yet it is not the personal

God whom any man may learn to know by these

aids ; He can be known only by the revelation of

Himself in His Son ; but only His divine attributes,

His majesty and glory. This Theophylact feels,

who gives iieyakeLorrj^; as equivalent to OetoTT}^ here

;

and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this

vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just

because he would affirm that men may know God's

power and majesty from His works ; but would not

imply that they may know Himself from these or

from anything short of the revelation of His Eter-

nal Word.' But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9),

St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells

all the fulness of absolute Godhead ; they were no

'Cicero {Tusc. i. 13): Multi de Diis prava sentitint; omnes

tamen esse vim et nahiram divinani aibitrantiir.

o

26 SYNONYMS OF THE

mere rays of divine glory wliicli gilded Him, light-

ing up His person for a season and witli a splendour

not His own ; but He was, and is, absolute and

perfect God ; and the Apostle uses deorrj^; to express

this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.

Thus Beza rightly : JN'on dicit : rrjv decorvra, i. e.

divinitatem, sed tt):^ OeoTTjra, i. e. deitatem, ut ma-

gis etiam exj^resse loquatur ', . . . y OeioTrj^ attributa

videtur potius quam naturam ipsam declarare. AndBengel ; IN'on modo divings virtutes, sed ipsa divina

natura. De "Wette has sought to express the dis-

tinction in his German translation, rendering Oeiorr)^

by ' Gottlichkeit,' and e€6T7]<; by ' Gottheit.'

There have not been wanting those who have

denied that any such distinction was intended by

St. Paul; and they rest this denial on the assump-

tion that no such diflerence between the forces of

the two w^ords can be satisfactorily made out. But

even supposing that it did not appear in classic

Greek, this of itself w^ould be in no way decisive

on the matter. The Gospel of Christ might for all

this put into words, and again draw out from them,

new forces, latent distinctions which those who hith-

erto employed the words may not have required,

but which were necessary for it. And that this

distinction between ' deity ' and ' divinity,' if I may

use these words to rej)resent severally OeoTq^ and

66l6t7)<^, is one which would be sti-ongly felt, and

NEW TESTAMENT. 27

which therefore would seek its utterance in Chris-

tian theology ; of this we have signal proof in the

fact that the Latin Christian writers were not con-

tent with ' divinitas,' which they found ready to

their hand in the writings of Cicero and of others

;

but themselves coined ' deltas ' as the only adequate

Latin representative of the Greek Oeorr]^. We have

Augustine's express testimony to the fact {De Civ.

Z>ei, vii. 1) : Hanc divinitatem^ vel ut sic dixerim

deitatem / nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non

piget, ut de Grseco expressius transferant id quod

illi detjTTjra appellant, &c. C£ x. 1, 2. But not to

urge this nor yet the several etymologies of the

words, which so clearly point to this difference in

their meanings, examples, so far as they extend, go

to support the same. Both Oeorr}^ and deioTr}^^ as in

general the abstract words in every language, are

of late formation ; and one of them, deorr]^ is ex-

tremely rare ; indeed only a single example of it

from classical Greek has yet been brought forward

(Lucian, Icarom. 9) ; where, however, it expresses,

in agreement with the view hero affirmed^ Godhead

in the absolute sense, or at least in as absolute a

sense as the heathen could conceive it. ©etor?;? is

a very much commoner word ; and all the instances

of its employment with which I am acquainted also

bear out the distinction which has been here drawn.

There is ever a manifestation of the divine, there

28 SYNu:s^YMS OF THE

are divine attributes, in that to which OecorTj^; is at-

tributed, but never absolute personal Deity. Thus

Lucian, {De Caliim. 17), attributes Oeiorr)^ to He-

ph^stion, when after his death Alexander would

have raised him to the rank of a god ; and Plutarch

speaks of the decorrj^; r?)? yjrvxv'i {^^ Plac. Phil, v.

1 ; cf De Isid. et Osir. 2 ; Sull. 6), with various

other passages to the like effect. In conclusion, it

may be observed, that whether tins distinction was

intended, as I am fully persuaded it was, by St.

Paul or not, it established itself firmly in the later

theological language of the Church— the Greek

Fathers using never ^etor???, but always OeoTrj?, as

alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead

of each of the Three Persons in the Trinity.

§ iii.

—

lepov, va6<;.

"We have only in our Yersion the one word^ temple,' with which we render both of these ; nor

is it very easy to perceive in what manner we could

have indicated the distinction between them ; whicli

is yet a very real one, and one the marking of which

would often add much to the clearness and preci-

sion of the sacred narrative. 'lepSv is the whole

compass of the sacred enclosure, the re/^ei/o?, in-

NEW TESTAMENT. 29

eluding the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and

other buildings subordinated to the temple itself.

Na6<>, on the other hand, from valco, ' habito,' the

proper habitation of God, is the temple itself, that

properly and by especial right so called, being the

kernel and centre of the whole ; the Holy and the

Holy of Holies. This distinction, one that existed

and was recognized in profane Greek and with

reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in

sacred Greek and with relation to tlie temple of the

true God (see Herodotus, i. 181, 183), is one, I be-

lieve, always assumed in all passages relating to

tlie temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josej^hus, by

Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the

ISTew Testament. Often indeed it is explicitly

recognized, as by Josephus, {Antt. viii. 3. 9), who,

having described the building of the va6<i by Solo-

mon, goes on to say ; Naov 8' e^coOev kpov wKoSofjLT]'

aev iv rerpaycovo) a'Xpj/jLarc. In another passage

{Antt. xi. 4. 3), he describes the Samaritans as seek-

ing permission of the Jews to be allowed to share

in the rebuilding of God's house {o-vyKaraaKevdaai

rov vaov). This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2);

but, according to his account, it was j)ermitted to

them d(j)tKvov/jL€voL<; et? to lepov cre^eLv rov Seuv—a privilege denied to mere Gentiles, who might not,

under penalty of death, pass beyond their own

Court (Acts xxi. 29, 30).

30 SYNONYMS OF THE.

The distinction may be bronght to bear with

advantage on several passages in the New Testa-

ment. When Zacharias entered into " the temple

of the Lord " to burn incense, the people who wait-

ed his return, and who are described as standing

" without " (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the

temple too, that is the lepov^ while he alone entered

into the va6<^, the ' temple ' in its more limited and

auguster sense. We read continually of Christ

teaching ' in the temple ' (Matt. xxvi. 55 ; Luke xxi.

57 ; John viii. 20) ; and perhaps are at a loss to

understand how this could have been so ; or how

long conversations could there have been maintain-

ed, without interrupting the service of God. But

this is ever the iepov^ the porches and porticoes of

which were eminently adapted to such purposes,

as they were intended for them. So too the money

changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep

and oxen whom the Lord drives out. He repels

them from the lepov^ and not from the vao^. Irreve-

rent as was their intrusion, they yet had not dared

to establish themselves in the temple properly so

called (Matt. xxi. 23 ; John ii. 14). On the other

hand, when we read of another Zacharias slain

" between the temple and the altar " (Matt, xxiii.

35), we have only to remember that ' temple ' is

mo? here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which

may perhaps have presented itself to many—this,

NEW TESTAMENT. 31

namely, Was not the altar in the temple? how

then could any locality be described as hetween

these two ? In the lepov^ doubtless, the brazen altar

to which allusion is here made was, but not in the

va6<;^ " in the court of the house of the Lord " (cf.

Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1), where the sacred histo-

rian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this mur-

der, but not in the house of the Lord, or va6<; itself.

Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the

despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even

into the vao^ (Matt, xxvii. 5), into that which was

set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down

before them the accursed price of blood ! Those

expositors who afiirm that here vao^; stands for kpov^

should adduce some other passage in which the one

is put for the other.

§ iv.

—

iTTiTifidco, iXeyx^. {alria, eXey^^o?.)

One may ' rebuke ' another without bringing

the rebuked to a conviction of any fanlt on his

part ; and this, either because there was none, and

the rebuke was therefore unneeded or unjust ; or

else because, though there was such fault, the re-

buke was ineffectual to bring the offender to own

it ; and in this possibility of ^ rebuking ' for sin,

32 SYXONYMS OF THE

without ' convincing ' of sin, lies tlie distinction be-

tween these two words. In eTnnfiav lies simply the

notion of rebuking ; which word can therefore be

used of one unjustly checking or blaming another

;

in this sense Peter ' rebuked ' Jesus {rip^aro i-TrcTo-

fidv, Matt. xvi. 22 ; cf. xix. 13 ; Luke xviii. 39)

:

— or ineffectually and without any profit to the

person rebuked, who is not therefore made to see

his sin; as when the penitent* thief ' rebuked

'

(eVeTi/xa) his fellow malefactor (Luke xxiii. 40 ; cf,

Mark ix. 25). But iXeyx^tv is a much more preg-

nant word ; it is so to rebuke another, with such

efiectual wielding of the victorious arms of the

truth, as to bring him, I do not say to a confession,

but to a conviction, of his sin; just as in juristic

Greek, it is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an

opponent.

"When we keep this distinction well in mind,

what a light does it throw on a multitude of pas-

sages in the ISTew Testament ; and how much deep-

er a meaning does it give them. Thus our Lord

could demand, " "Which of you convinceth {iXiyx^i)

Me of sin ? " (John viii. 46.) ISTumbers rebuked

ilim ; numbers laid sin to His charge (Matt. ix. 3

;

John ix. 16) ; but none brought sin home to His

conscience. Other passages which will gain from

realizing the fulness of the meaning of eXeyx^iv, ai-e

John iii. 20 ; viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25 ;but above

NEW TESTAMENT. 33

all, the great passage, John xvi. 8 ;" When He

[the Comforter] is come. He will rejyrove the world

of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ;" so

we have rendered the words, following in our ' re-

prove ' the Latin ' arguet ;' although few, I think,

that have in any degree sought to sound the depth

of our Lord's words, but will admit that ' convince,'

which unfortunately our translators have relegated

to the margin, would have been the preferable ren-

dering, giving a depth and fulness of meaning to

this work of the Holy Ghost, which ' reprove ' in

some part fails to express.* ''He who shall come

in my room, shall so bring home to the world its

own ' sin,' my perfect ' righteousness,' God's coming

'judgment,' shall so 'convince' it of these, that it

shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them ; and

in this acknowledgment may find, shall be in the

right way to find, its own blessedness and salva-

tion."

Between alria and ekeyx^o^ a diflference of a

similar character exists. Alrlo, is an accusation, but

whether false or true the word does not attempt to

^ Lnmpe gives excellently 'well the force of this ixiy^ci : Opus

Doctoris, qui veritatem quse hactenus non est agnita ita ad con-

scientiom etiam renitentis demonstrat, ut yictas dare mauus coga-

tur. See an admirable discussion on the word, especially as here

used, in Archdeacon Hare's Mission of the Comforter, 1st edit, pp.

628—544.

2*

34 SYNONYMS OF THE

anticipate ; and thus it could be apx^lied, indeed it

was applied to the accusation made against the Lord

of Glory Himself (Matt, xxvii. 37); but eXey^o?

implies not merely the charge, but the truth of the

charge, and the manifestation of the truth; nay

more than this, very often also the acknowledgment,

if not outward, yet inward, of the truth of the

charge on the side of the party accused ; it being

the glorious prerogative of the truth in its highest

operation not merely to assert itself; and to silence

the adversary, but to silence him by convincing him

of his error. Demosthenes, Con. Androt. p. 600 :

TId/jL7ro\v XoiBopla re koI alria Ke')(copt(T^evov iarlv

iXiyx^ov. alria fiev yap iarcv^ orav tc<; i/rtXot> '^(^prjad-

/jL€vo<; Xoyay firj 7rapda')(7]TaL iridTiv^ wv Xeyer eXey^j^o?

Si, orav cjv av eXiry Ti9, ical TdXr}6e<i 6/iov Bel^rj.

Compare Aristotle, lihet. ad Alex. 13 : "EXeyxo^

earn, fiev o fir] Bwarbv dXX(o<; e^^etv dXX^ ovtcd<^, w?

9;/xet9 Xeyo/jL€v. By our serviceable distinction be-

tween ' convict ' and ' convince ' we maintain a dif-

ference between the judicial and the moral eXey^o?.

Both will meet together in the last day, when every

- condemned sinner will be at once ' convicted ' and' convinced ;

' all which is implied in that " he was

speechless " of the guest who was found by the

king without a marriage garment (Matt. xxii. 12;

cf Rom. iii. 4).

NEW TESTAMENT. 35

§ Y.

—

dvd6TjfjLa, dvdOefia.

Many would deny that tliere is any room foi

synonymous discrimination in respect of these two

words, affirming them to be merely different spell-

ings of the same word, and promiscuously used

;

which if it were the fact, their fitness for a j)lace in

a book of synonyms w^ould of course disappear;

difference as well as likeness being necessary for

this. This much, indeed, of what they affirm is

perfectly true—namely, that dvddrnxa and avdOefjua,

like evp7]/ia and evpe/ia, eTTLOrjfjLa and eV/^e/xa, must

severally be regarded as having been at first only

different pronunciations, which issued in different

sjDellings, of one and the same word. But it is cer-

tain that nothing is more common than for slightly

different orthographies of the same word finally to

settle and resolve themselves into different words,

with different provinces of meaning w^hich they

have severally appropriated to themselves ; and

which henceforth they maintain in perfect inde-

pendence one of the other. I have elsewhere given

a considerable number of exam23les of the kind

;

and a very few may here suffice : Opdao^ and Odp(To<;,

^Thrax' and 'Threx,' 'rechtlich' and ^redlich,'

'harnais' and 'harnois,' 'allay' and 'alloy.' That

SYKOoS^YMS OF THE

which may be affirmed of all thesej^ may also, I ampersuaded, be affirmed in respect of avad-qfia and

avddefia. Whether this were so or not w^as a ques-

tion debated with no little heat by some of the

great early Hellenists, and names of weight and

importance are ranged on either side ; Salmasius

being the greatest name among those who main-

tained the existence of a distinction, at least in

Hellenistic Greek ; Beza among those who denied

it. Perhaps here, as in so many cases, the truth

did not absolutely lie with the combatants on either

part, but lay rather between them, though much

neai-er to one j)art than the other ; the most reason-

able conclusion, after weighing all the evidence on

either side, being this— that such a distinction did

exist, and was allowed by many, but was by no

means recognized or observed by all.

In classical Greek avdOrj/na is quite the predomi-

nant form, and that which alone Attic writers allow

(Lobeck, PhrifnicJuis, pp. 249, 445). It is there the

technical word by which all such costly offerings as

were presented to the gods, and then suspended or

otherwise exposed to view in their temples, all by

the Romans termed ' donaria,' as trij^ods, crowns,

silver and golden vases, and the like, were called;

which were in this way separated for ever from all

common and profane uses, and openly dedicated to

the honour of that deity to whom tliey were present-

]SrEW TESTAMENT. 37

ed at the first (Xenophon, Anctb. v. 3. 5 ; Paiisanias,

X. 9).

But with the translation of the Hebrew Scrip-

tures into Greek, a new thought demanded to find

utterance. Those Scriptures spoke of tioo ways in

which things and persons might be holy, set apart

for God, devoted to Him. The children of Israel

were devoted to Him ; God was glorified in them :

the wicked Canaanites were devoted to Him ; Godwas glorified on them. This awful fact, that things

and persons might be devoted to Him for good, and

for evil ; that there was such a thing as being " ac-

cursed to tJie Lord^^ (Josh. vi. IT; cf. Deut. xiii. IG;

ISTumb. xxi. 1—3) ; that of the spoil of the same

city, a part might be consecrated to the Lord in

His treasury, and a part utterly.destroyed, and yet

this part and that be alike dedicated to Him (Josh.

vi. 19, 21) ; that in more ways than one a thing

might be holy to Him (Lev. xvii. 28),— claimed its

expression and utterance now, and found it in the

two uses of one word ; which, while it remained the

same, just diflferenced itself enough to indicate in

which of the two senses it was employed. Andhere let it be observed, that those who find separa-

tion from God as the central idea of avdOeiia, are

quite unable to trace a common bond of meaning

between it and avdOrj^ia^ which last is 2)lainly sej)a-

ration to God ; or to show the point at which they

38 SYNONYMS OF THE

diverge from one another. Rather is it separation

to God in both cases. ^

Ah'eady in the Septuagint we begin to find

avdOij/jua and dvadefia disengaging themselves from

one another, and from a confused and promiscuous

nse. How far, indeed, the distinction is observed

there, and whether universally, it is hard to deter-

mine, from the variety of readings in various edi-

tions ; but in one of the later critical editions (that

of Tischendorf, 1850), many passages (such for in-

stance as Judith xvi. 19 ; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29), which

appear in some earlier editions negligent of the

distinction, are observant of it. In the I^ew Testa-

ment the distinction that dvdOrifjia is used to express

the ' sacrum ' in a better sense, dvdOefia in a worse,

is invariably maintained. It must be allowed, in-

deed, that the passages there are not numerous

enough to convince a gainsayer ; he may attribute

to hazard the fact that they fall in with this distinc-

^ Flacius Illyrieus {Clavis Scripturce, s. v. Anathema), excellent-

ly explains the manner in which the two apparently opposed

meanings unfold themselves from a single root: Anathema igitur

est res ant persona Deo obligata ant addicta; sive quia Ei ab

hominibus est pietatis causA oblata: sive quia justitia Dei talcs, ob

singularia aliqua piacula veluti in suos carceres pcenasque abripuit,

comprobante et deelarante id etiam hominum sententia.. . . . Duplici

enim de causS, Deus vult aliquid habere; vel tanquam gratum

acceptumque ac sibi oblatum ; vel tanquam sibi exosum, suseque

irse ac castigationi subjectum ac debitum.

NEW TESTAMENT. 39

tion ; dvdOrj/jLa occurring only once :" Some sjDake

of the temjDle, liow it was adorned with goodly

stones and gifts " {dvaOrj^aai^ Lnke xxi. 5) ; and

dvaOefxa no more than six times (Acts xxiii. 14

;

Kom. ix. 3 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3 ; xvi. 22 ; Gal. i. 8, 9).

Still none can deny that so far as these uses reach,

they confirm this view of the matter ; while if weturn to the Greek Fathers, we shall find some of

them indeed neglecting the distinction ; but others,

and these of the greatest among them, not merely

implicitly allowing it, as does Clemens of Alexan-

dria {Coh. ad Gen. 4), dvddiifia (y€<y6vafjLev rS ©eoi

vTrep Xpiarov : where the context plainly shows the

meaning to be, we have become a costly offering to

God; but explicitly recognising and drawing out

the difference with accuracy and precision. See,

for instance, Chrysostom, Horn. xvi. in Bom.^ as

quoted in Suicer's Thesaurus, s. v. dvadefxa.

And thus, putting all which has been urged to-

gether,— the cipriori probability, drawn from simi-

lar phenomena in all languages, that the two fomis

of a word would gradually have two different mean-

ings attached to them ; the wondrous way in which

the two aspects of dedication to God are thus set

out by slightly diflerent forms of the same word

;

the fact that every place in the ]^ew Testament,

where the words occur, falls in with this scheme;

the usage, though not perfectly consistent, of later

4:0 STNO^'YMS OF THE

ecclesiastical books,— I cannot but conclude that

dvddrj^a and dvddefia are employed not accidentally

by the sacred writers of the IN'ew Covenant in dif-

ferent senses ; but that St. Luke uses dvdOrj/ia, be-

cause he intends to express that which is dedicated

to God for its own honour as well as for God's

glory; St. Paul uses avdOe/na, because he intends

that which is devoted to God, but devoted, as were

the Canaanites of old, to his honour indeed, but its

own utter loss ; even as in the end every intelligent

being, capable of knowing and loving God, must

be either dvddTjfia or dvddefia to Him. (See Wit-

sius, Misc. Sac. vol. ii. p. 5i, sqq. ; Deyling, Ohss.

Sac. vol. ii. p. 495, sqq.)

§ vi.

—

7rpo(j>r)T€V(o, /jLavreuofiat.

npo(f}r}T6va) is a word of constant occurrence in

the jSTew Testament;pLavrevofiai occurs but once,

namely at Acts xvi. 16 ; where of the girl possessed

with the " spirit of divination," or sj^irit of Apollo,

it is said that she " brought her masters much gain

hy soothsaying'^^ {ixavTevofxivrj). Tlie abstinence from

the nse of this word on all other occasions, and the

use of it on this one, is very observable, furnishing

as it does a very notable example of that instinctive

NEW TESTAMENT. 41

wisdom wlierewith the inspired writers keep aloof

from all words, tlie employment of which would

have tended to break down the distinction between

lieathenism and revealed religion. Thus evhaifMovla^

although from a heathen point of view a religious

word, for it ascribes happiness to the favour of the

deity, is yet never employed to express Christian

blessedness ; nor could it fitly have been so, Bal/icov,

which supplies its base, involving polytheistic error.

In like manner aperrj, the standing word in heathen

ethics for ' virtue,' is of very rarest occurrence in

the JSTew Testament ; it is found but once in all the

writings of St. Paul (Phil. iv. 8) ; and where else

(which is only in the Epistles of St. Peter), in quite

difierent uses from those in which Aristotle employs

it.' In the same way rjdr], which gives us ' ethics,'

occurs only on a single occasion, and, which indi-

cates that its absence elsewhere is not accidental,

this once is in a quotation from a heathen poet

(1 Cor. XV. 33). The same precision in maintaining

these lines of demarcation is again strikingly mani-

fested in the fact of the constant use of OvaiaaTTjpiov

for the altar of the true God, occurring as it does

more tlian twenty times in the books of the l^ew

Covenant, while on the one occasion when an hea-

' Veibura nimium liumile,— as Beza, accounting for its absence,

says,— si cum donis S. S. eomparetar.

42 SYNONYMS OF THE

then altar has need to be named, the word is

changed, and instead of OvaiaarijpLov (' altare' ),

Bcofio^ ('ara') is nsed (Acts xvii. 23); the feeliDg

which dictated the exchision of ficofio^ long survi-

ving in the Church, so that, as altogether profane,

it was quite shut out from Christian terminology

(August! , Handbucli der Christlicher Archdologie^

vol. i. p. 412).

In conformity with this same law of moral fit-

ness in the selection of words, we meet with irpo-

(j)r}Tev6tv as the constant word in the JJsTew Testament

to express the prophesying by the Spirit of God

;

while directly a sacred writer has need to make

mention of the lying art of heathen divination, he

employs this word no longer, but fiavreveaOat in

j)reference (cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8 ; Deut. xviii. 10).

What the essential difference between the two

things, prophesying and soothsaying, the ' weissa-

gen ' and the ^ wahrsagen 'is, and wliy it was ne-

cessary to kee^) them distinct and apart by different

terms used to designate the one and the other, weshall best perceive and understand, when we have

considered the etymology of one, at least, of the

words. Mavrevo/xai being from /xai^rt?, is through

it connected, as Plato has taught us, with fj,avla and

fiaivofjiai. It will follow from this, that the word

has reference to the tumult of the mind, the fur}^,

the temporary madness under which those were,

NEW TE^iJMENT. 43

who were supposed to be j^ossessed by tlie god,

during the time that they delivered their oracles;

this niantic fury of theirs displaying itself in the

eyes rolling, the lips foaming, the hair flying, with

all other tokens of a more than natural agitation.^

It is quite possible that these symptoms were some-

times produced, as no doubt they were often height-

ened, in the seers. Pythonesses, Sibyls and the like,

by the use of drugs, or by other artificial means.

Yet no one who believes that real spiritual forces

underlie all forms of idolatry, but will also believe

that there was often much more in these manifesta-

tions than mere trickery of this kind ; no one with

any insight into the awful mystery of the false wor-

ships of the world, but will believe that these symp-

toms were the evidence and expression of an actual

connexion in which these persons stood to a spirit-

ual world— a spiritual world, indeed, which was

not above them, but beneath.

' Cicero, who loves to bring out, where he can, superiorities of

the Latin language over the Greek, claims, and I think with rea-

son, such a superiority here, in that the Latin has * divinatio,' a

word embodying the divine character of prophecy, and the fact

that it was a gift of the gods, where the Greek had only /xavTiKv,

which, seizing not the thing itself at any central point, did no

more than set forth one of the external signs which accompanied

its giving. {Be Divin. i. 1) : Ut alia nos melius raulta quam

Gvaeci, sic huic praestantissimaj rei nomen nostri a divis ; Grseci,

ut Plato interpretatur, a furore duxorunt.

44 SYNONYMS OF THE

Eevelatioii, on the other hand, knows nothing

of this mantic fmy, except to condemn it. '^ The

spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets "

(1 Cor. xiv. 32). The true prophet is, indeed, rapt

out of himself; he is " in the Spirit" (Rev. i. 10)

;

he is " in an ecstasy " (Acts xi. 5) ; he is viro TLvev-

/jLaTo<; 'AjLov (})€ p ofievo^; (2 Pet. i. 21), which is

very much more than ' moved,' as we have rendered

it ; rather ' getrieben,' as De AVette ; and we must

not go so far in our opposition to heathen and Mon-

tanist error as to deny this, which some, especially

of those engaged in controversy with the Montanists,

have done. But then he is not lesicle himself; he

is lifted cibove^ not thus set heside^ his every-day self.

It is not discord and disorder, but a higher harmo-

ny, a diviner order, that is introduced into his soul

;

so that he is not as one overborne in the region of

his lower life by forces stronger than his ovrn, by

an insurrection from beneath ; but his spirit is lift-

ed out of that region into a clearer atmosphere, a

diviner day, than any in which at other times it is

permitted him to breathe. All that he before had

still remains his, only purged, exalted, quickened,

by a power higher than his own, but yet not alien

to his own ; for man is most truly man, when he is

most filled with the fulness of God.' Even witliin

' See John Smith, the Cambridge Platonist, On Prophecy : ch. 4.

NEW TESTAMENT. .45

the sphere of heathenism itself, the superior digni-

ty of the 7rpo(j)T]T7]<; to the fidvTt<; was recognised

;

and recognised on these very grounds. Thus there

is a well known and often cited passage in the Ti-

mceus of Plato (71 e, 72 a, h), where exactly for this

reason, that the fiavri^ is one in whom the powers

of the understanding are suspended, who, according

to the derivation of the word, more or less rages,

the line is drawn broadly and distinctly between

him and the Trpocpijrr]^, the former is subordinated

to the latter, and his utterances only allowed to pass

after they have received the seal and approbation

of the other. The truth which the best heatlien

philosophy had a glimpse of here, was permanently

embodied in the Christian Church in the fact that,

while it assumed the TrpocprjTeveiv to itself, it ascribed

the /jLavreuea-dao to that heathenism which it was

about to displace and overthrow.

TTic difference of the true prophetical Spirit from an enthusiastical

Imvosture.

46 SYNONYMS OF THE

§ vii.

—

TLficopia^ KoXacrt^.

Of these words the former occurs but once in

the New Testament (Heb. x. 29), and the latter only

twice (Matt. xxv. 46 ; 1 John iv. 18). In TLficopia,

according to its classical use, the vindicative charac-

ter of the punishment is the predominant thought

:

it is the Latin ' ultio ; ' punishment as satisfying the

inflicter's sense of outraged justice, as defending his

own honour, or that of the violated laAV ; herein its

meaning agrees with its etymology, being from rifjLi],

and ovpo<;, opdco, the guardianship or protectorate of

honour. In KoXaai^^ on the other hand, is more the

notion of punishment as it has reference to the cor-

rection and bettering of him that endures it ; it is

' castigatio,' and has naturally for the most part a

milder use than rt/ncopLa. Thus we find Plato

{Protag. 323 6), joining Ko\aau% and vovdeTr]aei^

together : and the whole passage to the end of the

chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction

between the words : ovBeU KoXd^ec rov^ dhiKOvvTa^;

on rjSl/CTjaep^ oaTi<; /I't] Mairep Orfplov dXoylarcD<; rt-

fjLO) pelraij . . . ciXXa rov fxeXXovTO<; %«pij/, Iva jjli]

avOa dhiKrjar} : the same change of the words which

he emj)loys, occurring again twice or thrice in the

sentence. Compare an instructive chapter in Cle-

NEW TESTAMENT. 47

mens of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 24. And tins is

Aristotle's distinction {Rhet. i. 10) : hia(f)epei he rt-

ficopla KoX KoKa(7i<i' 77 jxev yap KoXaac^ rod 'iTda')(OVTo<;

eveKOL ianv' 1) he TLfJLcopia, rod 'itolovvto<;, Xva airo-

TfkrjpcoOfj : cf. EtMc. Nic. iv. 5 : Tifiaypia iravei t?}?

opyrj<;^ rjhov'qv avri Tr]<; Xutt?/? ifJiiTOiovaa.

It would be a very serious error, however, to

attempt to transfer this distinction in its entireness

to the words as employed in the Xew Testament.

The /coXao-t? alwvLO<^ of Matt. xxv. 46, as it plainly

itself declares, is no corrective and therefore tem-

porary discipline ; it can be no other than the aOd-

vaTo<; Ttfxcopia (Josephus, Ij. J. ii. 8. 11), the dlhioi

TLfxwplaL (Plato, Ax, 372 «), with which the Lord

elsewhere threatens finally impenitent men (Mark

ix. 43—48) ; for in proof that K6\aac<; had acquired

in Hellenistic Greek this severer sense, and was

used simply as punishment or torment, with no ne-

cessary underthought of the bettering through it

of him who endured it, we have only to refer to

such passages as the following : Josephus, Antt. xv.

2. 2 ; Philo, De Agricul. 9 ; Mart. Polycar. 2 ; 2

Mace. iv. 38 ; Wisd. of Sol. xix. 4. This much, in-

deed, of Aristotle's distinction still remains, and

may be recognised in the sacred usage of the words,

that in Ko\aaL<; the relation of the punishment to

tlie punished, in TLjjLwpla to the punisher, is pre-

dominant.

48 SYNONYMS OF THE

§ yiii.

—

a\r}6j]<;. aXrjdivo^.

In tlie Latin ' verax ' and ^ verus ' would seve-

rally represent these two words, and in the main

reproduce the distinctions existing between them

;

indeed the Yulgate does commonly by their aid in-

dicate whether akyjOrj^ or oXtjOlvo^ stands in the

original: but the English language has only the

one word ' true ' by which to render them both ; so

that of necessity, and by no fault of the translators,

the difference between them disappears in our ver-

sion. And yet this difference is a most real one.

What exactly the nature of it is, a single example

wall at once make evident. God is Qeo<; dXrjdr]^,

and He is 0eo? aX7]6iv6<; : but very different attri-

butes and prerogatives are ascribed to Him by the

one epithet, and by the other. God is dXrjdy]? (John

iii. 33 ; Eom. iii. 4 ; == verax), inasmuch as He can-

not lie, as He is d'\jr6vBij<; (Tit. i. 2), the truth-speak-

ing, and the truth-loving God (cf. Euripides, Io?i,

155^1:). But He is d\7]6iv6^ (1 Thess. i. 9; Jolmxvii.

3 ;= verus), very God, as distinguished from idols,

and all other false gods, the dreams of the diseased

fancy of man, having no substantial existence in

the actual world of realities. "The adjectives in

-L-vo<; express the material out of which anything is

NEW TESTAIVIENT. 4:9

made, or rather they imply a mixed relation, of

quality and origin, to the object denoted by the sub-

stantive from which they are derived. Thus ^vX-i-

vo^ means 'of wood,' 'wooden;' [oo-rpa/c-t-i/o?, 'of

earth,' ' earthen ;

' vuX-l-vo^, ' of glass,' ' glassy;

']

and a\7]d-i,-v6<; signifies ' genuine,' made up of that

which is true [that which in chemical language has

truth for its stuff and base]. This last adjective is

particularly applied to express that which is all that

it pretends to be ; for instance pure gold as opposed

to adulterated metal." (Donaldson, JVevj Cratylus,

p. 426.)

It will be seen from this last remark that it does

not of necessity follow, that whatever may be con-

trasted with the akr]dLv6^^ should thereby be con-

cluded to have no substantial existence, to be alto-

gether false and fraudulent. Inferior and subordi-

nate realizations, partial and imperfect anticipations,

of the truth, may be set over against the truth in

its highest form, in its ripest and completest devel-

oi)ment ; and then to this last alone the title oXtjOc-

1/6? Avill be vouchsafed. Thus Xenophon affirms of

Cyrus {Anah. i. 9. IT), that he commanded aXrjdcvop

a-rpdrev/jia, an army indeed, an army deserving the

name ; but would not have altogether refused this

name of ' army ' to inferior hosts ; and Plato (^'m.

25 a)y calling the sea beyond the Straits of Hercu

Ics, TreXayo? ovr(o<;, d\7]6Lvb^ iruvros, would say that

3

50 SYNONYMS OF THE

it alone realized to the full the idea of the great

ocean deep ; of. Pol. i. 347 d: 6 rat ovti oXtjOlvo^;

dpxcov. We should frequently miss the exact force

of the word, we should, indeed, find ourselves en-

tangled in many and serious embarrassments, if we

understood it necessarily as the true opposed to the

false. Bather it is very often the substantial as

opposed to the shadowy and outlinear ; as Origen

(m Joan. torn. ii. § 4) has well expressed it : a\7]6iv6<i,

7r/309 avTLhiaaTo\r]v aKta^ koX tvitov kol gIkovo^.

Thus, at Heb. viii. 2, mention is made of the o-Krjvri

aX7]6ivrj into which our great High Priest entered;

which, of course, does not imply that the tabernacle

in the wilderness was not also most truly pitched

at God's bidding, and according to the pattern

which he had shown; but only that it, and all

things in it, were weak earthly copies of things

which had a real and glorious existence in heaven

(avTiTvira twp a\r]div6}v) ; the passing of the Jewish

High Priest into the Holy of Holies, with all else

pertaining to the worldly sanctuary, being but the

cKia Tcov fJieWovTwv ayaOSiv^ while the aSifMa^ the

filling up of these outlines, was of and by Christ

(Col. ii. 17).^

*This R Spanheim {Duh. Evang. 106) has well put: 'AKrjeeia

in Scriptura, Sacr&, interdum sumitur ethice, et opponitur falsitati

et mendacio ; interdum mystice, et opponitur typis et umbris, ut

iiKwy illis respondens, quae Veritas alio modo etiam o-w/uo vocatur a

NEW TESTA^IENT. 51

"Wlien in like manner it is said, " The law was

given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus

Christ " (John i. 17), it is plain that the antithesis

cannot lie between the false and the true, but only

between the imperfect and the perfect, the shadowy

and the substantial. So too the Eternal Word is

declared to be to ^w? to aKr\Qivbv (John i. 9), not

denying thereby that the Baptist was also " a burn-

ing and a shining light " (John v. 35), or that the

faithful are "lights in the w^orld" (Phil. ii. 15;

Matt. Y. li), but only claiming for a Greater than

all to be " the Light w^hich lighteth every man that

cometh into the world." ^ Christ declares Himself

o a/3T09 o oXtiOlvos (John vi. 32), not that the bread

which Moses gave was not also " bread of heaven "

(Ps. cv. 40), but it was such only in a secondary

inferior degree ; it was not food in the highest sense,

Spiritu S. opposita t^ (TKia. Cf. Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iii. p, 31Y

;

vol. iv. p. 548.

^ Lampe {in loc.) : Innnitur ergo hie oppositio turn luminarium

naturalium, qualia fuere lux creationis, lux Israelitarum in -^gyp-

to, lux columnse in deserto, lux gemmarum in peetorali, quae non

nisi umbrae fuere hxijus verae lucis ; turn eorum, qui falso se esse

lumen hominum gloriantur, quales sigillatim fuere Sol et Luna

Ecclesiae Judaicae, qui cum ortu hujus Lucis obscurandi, Joel, ii.

31 ; tum denique verorum qiioque luminarium, sed in minore gra-

du, quaeque omne suum lumen ab hoc Lumine mutuantur, qualia

sunt omnes Sancti, Doctores, Angeli lucis, ipse denique Joannes

Baptista.

52 SYNONYMS OF THE

inasmucli as it did not nourish np unto eternal life

those that ate it (John vi. 49). He was 97 a/xTreXo?

97 aXrjOivr] (John XV. 1), not thereby denying that

Israel also was God's vine, which we know it was

(Ps. Ixxx. 8 ; Jer. ii. 21), but only affirming that

none but He realized this name, and all that it im-

plied, to the full (Hos. X. 1 ; Deut. xxxii. 32).^ It

would be easy to follow this up further ; but these

examples, which the thoughtful student will observe

are drawn chiefly from St. John, may suffice. The

fact that in his writings the word akrjdivo^ is used

two and twenty times as against five times in all

the rest of the New Testament, is one which he will

scarcely dismiss without a thought.

To sum up then, as briefly as jDossible, the dif-

ferences between the two words, we may affirm of

the aX.r)9i]<;j that he fulfils the promise of his lips,

but the aXrjOivo^ the wider promise of his name.

Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest,

deepest, widest sense, that he realizes to the full.

^ Lampe: Christus est Vitis vera, . . . et quft. talis prceponi, quia

et opponi, potest omnibus aliis qui etiam sub hoc symbol© in scrip-

tis proplieticis pinguntur.

NEW TESTAMENT. 53

§ ix.

—

depcLTTCov^ BovXo<;, hidKOVo<;^ v7rt]peT7j<;.

The only passage in the 'New Testament in

which OepcLTTcov occurs is Heb. iii. 5 :" And Moses

verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant "

(ct>9 Oepd-rrcov). The alhision here to JSTumb. xii. 7 is

manifest ; at which j)lace the Septuagint has given

Oepdirwv as its rendering of 'la:?; which yet is not

its constant rule ; for it has very frequently render-

ed it not by depdircov, but by SoOXo?. Out of this

latter rendering, no doubt, we have, at Eev. xv. 3,

the phrase, Mcovarj^; 6 Bov\o<; rod ©eov. From the

fact that the Septuagint translates the same Hebrew

word, now by SoOXo^, now by depdircov, it will not

follow that there is no diflerence between the words

;

nor yet that there may not be occasions when the

one would be far more appropriately employed than

the other ; but only that there are other occasions

which do not require the bringing out into promi-

nence of that which constitutes the difference be-

tween them. And such real difference there is.

The So{}\o9 (opposed to eXevOepo?, Rev. xiii. 16 ; xix.

18 ; Plato, Gorg. 502 d) is one in a permanent rela-

tion of servitude to another, and that, altogether

apart from any ministration to that other at the

present moment rendered ; but the depdircov is the

54: SYNONYMS OF THE

performer of present services without respect to

the fact whether as a freeman or a slave he renders

them ; and thus, as will naturally follow, there goes

constantly with the word the sense of one whose

services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of

the SouXo<i. In the verb Oepaireveiv (' curare '), as

distinguished from hovkeveiv^ and connected with

' faveo,' ' foveo,' OdXircti^ the nobler and more careful

character of the service comes still more strongly

out. It may be used of the physician's watchful

tendance of the sick, man's service of God, and is

beautifully applied by Xenophon {Mem. iv. 3. 9) to

the care w^hich the gods have of men. Thus Achil-

les, in Homer, styles Patroclus his Oepdircov (II. xvi.

24:4), one whose service was not constrained, but

the officious ministration of love. Merioneus is

Oepdirav to Idomeneus (xxiii. 113), and all the

Greeks are Oepdirovres "Aprjos (ii. 110 and often).

So too in Plato {Sym]?. 203 c) Eros is styled the

cLKoXovOo^ KoX Oepdirwy of Aphrodite. With all

which agrees the definition of Hesychius : ol iv

Bevripa rd^ec <j)iXoi, ; of Ammonius : ol vTrorerayiuii-

voi (plXoL ; and of Eustathius : tcSi' (f)iXwv ol hpaan-

Kcorepoc.

It will be seen then that the author of the

Epistle to the Hebrews, calling Moses a Oepdirwv in

the house of God (iii. 5), implies that he occupied a

more confidential position, that a freer service, a

NEW TESTAMENT. 55

higher dignity was his, than that merely of a Bov\o<!,

approaching more closely to that of an oIkov6/jlo<; in

God's house ; and referring to ISTumb. xii. 6—8, wefind, confirming this view, that a special dignity is

there ascribed to Moses, lifting him above other

SovXot of God. It would have been well if in our

Version it had been in some way sought to indicate

the exceptional and more honourable title here

given to him who " was faithful in all God's house."

The Yulgate has very well rendered Oepdircov by' famulus,' (so Cicero, ' famulaa Idsese matris

') ; Tyn-

dal and Cranmer by ' minister,' which perhaps is

as good a word as in English could have been

found.

Neither ought the distinction between Sidfcovo<i

and Bov\o<; to be lost sight of and let go in the ren-

dering of the iNew Testament. There is no diffi-

culty in preserving it. AcaKovo^, not from Sia and

kovk;, one who in his speed runs through the dust

— a mere fanciful derivation, and forbiddeA by the

cjuantity of StdKovo<;— is j)robably from the same

root as has given us Scwkq), ' to hasten,' or ' j^ursue.'

The difference between Bi,dKovo<; on one side, and

Bov\o(i and depdiTODv on the other, is that BtaKovos

represents the servant in his activity for the worh

{SiaKoveLv Tt, Eph. iii. 7 ; Col. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6),

not in his relation either servile, as that of the SoO-

Xo9, or more voluntary, as in the case of the depd-

56 SYNONYMS OF THE

TTcoy, to a person. The attendants at a feast, and

these with no respect to their condition as one of

freedom or servitude, are as such BiaKovoL (John ii.

5 ; Matt. xxii. 13). What has just been said of the

importance of maintaining the distinction between

BovXo^ and hiaKovo^ may be illustrated from the

parable of the Marriage Supper (Matt. xxii. 2—14).

"With us the king's " servants " bring in the invited

guests (ver. 3, 4, 8, 10), and his " servants " are bid-

den to cast out him that had not on a wedding gar-

ment (ver. 13) : but in the Greek, those, the bring-

ere-in of the guests are hovXoi ; these, the fulfillers

of the king's sentence, are ScaKovot— this distinction

being a most real one, and belonging to the essen-

tials of the parable ; the hovXoL being men, the am-

bassadors of Christ who invite their brethren into

His kingdom now, the huiKovoL the angels, who in

all the judgment acts at the end of the world ever-

more appear as the executors of the Lord's will.

However the point of the parable may not turn

on the distinction between them, yet they may no

more be confounded than the BovXoc and OepLcrrai

of Matt. xiii. 27, 30 ; cf. Luke xix. 24.

'TTTTjpeTrj^j which only remains to be considered,

is a word drawn originally from military matters;

he is the rower (from ipeaaco, ' remigo '), as distin-

guished from the soldier on board a war-galley;

then the performer of any strong and hard labour

;

NEW TESTAilENT. 57

then the subordinate official that waits to accomplish

the commands of his superior, as the orderly that

attends a commander in war (Xenophon, Cyroj?. vi.

2. 13). In this sense, as a minister to perform cer-

tain defined functions for Paul and Barnabas, Mark

was their virrfpeTrj^ (Acts xiii. 5) ; and in this official

sense of lictor, apparitor, and the like, we find the

word constantly, indeed predominantly used in the

I^ew Testament (Matt. v. 25; Luke iv. 20; John

vii. 32 ; xviii. 18 ; Acts v. 22). The mention of lotJi

SovXoL and virrjpeTaL together (John xviii. 18) would

be alone sufficient to indicate that a difi'erence is

there observed between them ; and from this differ

ence it will follow that he who struck the Lord on

the face (John xviii. 32) could not be, as some have

supposed, the same whose ear He had but just

healed (Luke xxii. 51), seeing that this last was a

Bov\o<;, that profane striker an v7r7]p6Tr}<; of the High

Priest. The meanings of SiaKovo? and vTTTjperT)^ are

much more nearly allied ; they do in fact continu-

ally run into one another, and there are a multitude

of occasions on which they might be promiscuously

used ; the more official character of the v7rr}p6T7]<; is

the point in which the distinction between them

resides.

58 SYITONTMS OF THE

§ X.

—

Betkla, <f)6^o<;, evkd^eia.

Of these three words, the first is used always in

a bad sense ; the second is a middle term, capable

of a good interpretation, capable of an evil, and

lying j)retty evenly between the two ; the third is

quite predominantly used in a good sense, though

it too has not altogether escaped being employed in

an evil.

Aeikla, the Latin ' timor,' having OpaavT7)<;, or

* temerity,' for its opposite (Plato, Tim. 87 a), is our

* cowardice.' It occurs only once in the Kew Tes-

tament, 2 Tim. i. 7 ; but SecXidco, John xiv. 27 ; and

8eiA.69, Matt. viii. 26 ; Mark iv. 40 ; Eev. xxi. 8. In

this last passage the BetXoL beyond doubt are those

who in time of persecution have, out of fear of what

they should suffer, denied the faith. It is joined to

dvavhpela (Plato, PhoBclr. 254 c ; Legg. 859 h) ; to

-y^rv^poTv^ (Plutarch, Fab. Max. 17) ; to eKkvcn^ (2

Mace. iii. 24) ; is ascribed by Josephus to the spies

who brought an ill report of the Promised Land

{A7itt. iii. 15. 1) ; being constantly set over against

dvSpeia, as SetXo? over against dvSpelo^ : as for exam-

ple, in the long discussion on valour and cowardice

in Plato's Protagoras^ 360 d; and see the lively

description of the leCkb^ in the Characters (29) of

KEW TESTAMENT. 59

Theophrastus. Aeckia does not of course itself al-

low that it is such, but would shelter itself under

the more honourable title of evXd^eca (Philo, DeFortit. 739) ;

pleads for itself that it is aa^aXua

(Plutarch, Anim. an Corp. Ajpp. Pej. 3 ; Philo, Quod

Let. Pot, Insid. 11).

^6(3o^^ answering to the Latin term ' metus,' is a

middle term, and as such it is used in the JS'ew Tes-

tament sometimes in a bad sense, but oftener in a

good. Thus in a bad sense, Rom. viii. 15 ; 1 John

iv. 18 ; c£ Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 11 ; but in a good.

Acts ix. 31 ; Rom. iii. 18 ; Eph. vi. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 17.

^6Po<; being thus fiecrov, Plato, in the passage from

the Protagoras referred to above, adds alaxpo'i to

it, as often as he would indicate the timidity which

misbecomes a man.

Ev\d/3€ta, which only occurs twice in the N'ew

Testament (Heb. v. 7 ; xii. 28), and on each occa-

sion signifies piety contemplated on the side in

which it is a fear of God, is of course from ev Tul/jl-

PdveaOaL^ the image underlying the word being that

of the careful taking hold, the cautious handling, of

some precious yet delicate vessel, which with ruder

or less anxious handling might easily be broken.

But such a careftJness and cautiousness in the eon-

ducting of affairs, springing as no doubt in part it

does from a fear of miscarriage, easily lies open to

the charge of timidity. Thus Demosthenes claims

60 SYNONYMS OF THE

for himself that he was only ev\apr)<;^ where his

enemies charged him with being heCkos and aTok^io^,

It is not wonderful then that fear should have come

to be regarded as an essential element of euXaySeta,

though for the most part no dishonourable fear, but

such as a wise and good man might not be ashamed

to entertain. Cicero, Tusc. iv. 6 : Declinatio [a

malis] si cum ratione fiet, cautio appelletur, eaque

intelligatur in solo esse sapiente;quae autem sine

ratione et cum examinatione humili atque fracta,

nominetur tnetus. He has ^^I'obably the definition

of the Stoics in his eyes. These, while they disal-

lowed cj)6l3o? as a irdOo^, admitted evXd/Seta into the

circle of virtues. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 116

:

rrjv Be evXa/Secav [ivavriav (paalv elvai] rw (^o^m^

ovaav evXoyov e/CKXiaiv ^o^7]6)]a'6a9aL fxlv yap rov

aocpbv ovBa/jL(jo<i, evXa^rjOrja-ea-Qau Si. It is joined to

TTpovoLa by Plutarch, Ifarc. 9 ; and set over against

Opdao^ by Demosthenes, 51Y.

§ xi.

—

KaKLa, TTOVTjpia, KaKorjOeia.

We are probably at first inclined to regard KaKia

in the ITew Testament as expressing the whole

complex of moral evil, as vice in general ; and in

this latitude no doubt it is often used. Thus, aperal

NEW TESTAMENT. 61

KUL KaKiai are ' virtues and vices ' (Aristotle, Hhet.

ii. 12 ; Platarcli, Conj. Pr(BC. 25, and continually)

;

while Cicero {Tusc. iv. 15) refuses to translate KaKla

by ' malitia,' choosing rather to coin ' vitiositas ' for

the occasion, giving this as his reason : Xam mali-

tia certi cujusdani vitii nomen est, vitiositas om-

nium ; showing plainly that in his eye KaKia was

the name not of one ^dce, but of all. Yet a little

consideration of the passages in which it occurs in

the JSTew Testament, must make evident that it is

not there so used ; for then we should not find it as

one in a long catalogue of sins (Rom. i. 29 ; Col. iii.

8) ; seeing that in it alone the others would all have

been contained. We must therefore seek for it a

more special meaning, and bringing it into compari-

son with TTovrjplay we shall not err in saying that

KUKia is more the evil habit of mind, irovi^pCa rather

the outcoming of the same. Thus Calvin says of

KaKLa (Eph. iv. 32) : Significat hoc verbo [Aposto-

lus] animi jpravitatem quae humanitati et sequitati

est opposite, et malignitas vulgo nuncupatur. Our

English translators, rendering KaKia so often by

< malice ' (Eph. iv. 32 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; xiv. 20 ; 1

Pet. ii. 1), show that they regarded it in the same

light.

But the 7rov7)p6<; is, as Hesychius calls him, 6

BpaaTLKo^ Tov KaKov, the active worker out of evil

;

the German ' Bosewicht,' or as Beza {Annott. in

62 SYNONYMS OF THE

Matt. V. 37) has drawn the distinction : Significat

TTovrjpo^ aliqnid amplius quam Ara/co?, nempe eumqui sit in omni scelere exercitatus, et ad injuriam

cuivis inferendam totus comparatus. He is, accord-

ing to the derivation of the word, 6 'irape')(cc)v ttovov^,

or one that, as we say, '' pnts others to tronble;

"

and TTovrjpLa is the cnpiditas nocendi ; or as Jeremy-

Taylor explains it :'* aptness to do shrewd turns,

to delight in mischiefs and tragedies ; a loving to

tronble our neighbour and to do him ill offices;

crossness, perverseness, and j)eevishness of action

in our intercourse" {Doctrine and Practice of

Rejpentance^ iv. 1). If the KaK6<i is opposed to

the ayaOo'^, and the (j)av\o<; to the KokoKayado?,

the TTovTjpo'; would find his exact contrast in the

')(p7]aT6(i.

While these words, KaKia and Trovrjpla, occur

several times in the l^ew Testament, KaKorjOeia

ocurs there but once, namely, in St. Paul's long

and fearful enumeration of the wickednesses with

which the Gentile world was filled (Kom. i. 29),

and never in the Septuagint. We have translated

it ' malignity.' When, however, we take it in this

wider meaning, it is very difficult to assign to it any

district which has not been already j)reoccupied

either by KaKia or irovrjpLa. Even supposing the

exact limits w^hich separate these two words have

not been perfectly traced, yet between them they

NEW TESTAilENT. 63

will have left little or no room unappropriated

for 'malignity' to occupy as peculiarly its own. It

would therefore seem preferable to understand Ka-

Koi-jOeia here in the more restricted meaning which

it sometimes possesses. The Geneva version has

done so, which has rendered it by a periphrasis,

" taking all things in the evil part ;" which is ex-

actly the definition that Aristotle, of whose ethical

terminology the word forms a part, gives {Bhet. ii.

13) : earI yap KaKorjOeia to iirl to ^(elpov viroXaf^^d-

veiv airavTa, or, as Jeremy Taylor calls it, "a base-

ness of nature by which we take things by the

wrong handle, and expound things always in the

worst sense ; " the ' malignitas interpretantium

'

(Pliny, IJp. V. 7) ; ^ being exactly opposed to what

Seneca {De Ird, ii. 24) has so beautifully called the

' benigna rerum sestimatio.' For precisely this use

of KaKorj0cD<; see Josephus, A7itt. vii. 6. 1 ; cf. 2 Sam.

X. 3. This giving to all words and actions of others

tlieir most unfavourable interpretation Aristotle

marks as one of the vices of the old, in that mourn-

ful, yet for the Christian most instructive, passage,

which has been referred to just now ; they are

KaKor)6€L<i and KaxvTroTTToi. We shall scarcely err

then, taking KUKoijOeta, at Eom. i. 29, in this nar-

^ How striking, by the way, this use of 'interpreter,' as 'to

interpret awry,' in Tacitus (himself probably not wholly untouched

with the vice), Pliny, and the other writers of their age.

64 SYNONYMS OF THE

rower meaning ; the position which it occupies in

St. Paul's list of sins entirely justifies us in regard-

ing it as that peculiar form of evil which manifests

itself in a malignant interjDretation of the actions

of others, an attributing of them all to the worst

motive.

Nor should we take leave of the word without

noticing the deep psychological truth attested in.

this its secondary employment— this truth, I mean;

that the evil which we find in ourselves causes us

to suspect and believe evil in others. The kuko-

tjOt]^, according to tlie original constitution of the

word, is he that is himself of an evil ^^09 or moral

habit: but such an one projects himself, and the

motives which actuate him, into others, sees him-

self in them ; and as Love on the one side, in those

glorious words of Schiller,

" deliglitedly believes

Divinities, being itself divine,'"

SO that wdiich is itself thoroughly evil, finds it al-

most impossible to believe anything but evil in

others. The reader of the J^epuhlic of Plato will

remember that remarkable j)assage (iii. 409 a, J),

in which Socrates, showing how it is good for phy-

sicians to have had. chiefly to do with the sick, but

not for teachers and rulers with bad men, accounts

for the fact that the yet nncorrupted young men

NEW TESTAMENT. 65

are €vr]96L<;, as over against tlie KaKorjOeu^^ on this

ground, namely, are ovk, e-)(pvre<i iv eavroU irapa-

Sely/jLara ofioLoiradr) rots 7rovrjpo2<;.

§ xii.

—

ayaTrdco. (f)L\ico.

We have not, I believe, in any case attempted

to discriminate between these two words in our

English Version. It would not have been easy,

perhaps not possible to have done it ; and yet there

is often a difference between them, one very well

worthy to have been noted, if this had lain within

the compass of our language ; and which makes

the two words to stand very much in the same rela-

tion to one another as ' diligo ' and ' amo ' in the

Latin. It may be worth our while to realize to

ourselves the exact distinction between these two

Latin words, as it will help us much to understand

that which exists between those which are the more

immediate object of our inquiry. We have here

abundant help from Cicero, who often sets the

words in a certain instructive antithesis one to the

f 6ther. Thus, writing to one friend of the affection

in which he holds another (^. Mim. xiii. 47) : Ut

scires ilium a me non diligi solum, verum etiam

amari ; and again {Ad Brut. 1) : L. Clodius valde

66 SYNONYMS OF THE

me diligit^ vel, iit i/i^arLKcoTepov dicam, valde me

amat. From these and various other passages to

the same effect (there is an ample collection of them

in Doderlein's Latein. Synonyme^ vol. iv. p. 98 sq.),

we might conclude that ' amare,' which corresponds

to (ptXelv, is stronger than ' diligere,' which, as we

shall see, corresponds to ayaTrdv : and this in a cer-

tain sense is most true;

yet it is not a greater

strength and intensity in the first word than in the

second which accounts for these and for a multitude

of similar employments of them. Ernesti has suc-

cessfully seized the law of their several uses, when

he says : Diligere magis ad judicium, amare vero

ad intimum animi sensum j)ertinet. So that, in

fact, Cicero in the passage first quoted is saying,

—

" I do not esteem the man merely, but I love him;

there is something of the passionate warmth of af-

fection in the feeling with which I regard him."

But from this it will follow, that while friena

may desire rather ' amari ' than ' diligi ' by his

friend, yet there are asj^ects in which the ' diligi

'

is a higher thing than the ' amari,' the ajaTradOai

than the (fnXelaOai. The first expresses a more rea-

soning attachment, of choice and selection (diligere f^t

= deligere), from seeing in the object upon whom J""*^

it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard ; or

else from a sense that such was fit and due toward

the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or

NEW TESTAMENT. 67

the like ; wliile the second, without being necessa-

rily an unreasoning attachment, does yet oftentimes

give less account of itself to itself ; is more instinct-

ive, is more of the feelings, implies more passion

;

thus Dion Cass. 44 : i(f)L\r}aaTe avrov co? Trarepa^ koX

riyairrjaare &>? evepyirrjv. From this last fact it fol-

lows, that when the (piXelv is attributed to a person

of one sex in regard to one of another, it generally

implies the passion of love, and is seldom employed,

but rather dyaTrav, where such is not intended.

Take as an example of this the use of the two

words in John xi. The sisters of Bethany send to

Jesus to announce that His friend Lazarus is sick

(ver. 3) : no misunderstanding is here possible, and

the words therefore run thus: ov (pcXec^; aaOevel:

cf ver. 36. But where the Saviour's affection to

the sisters themselves is recorded, St. John at once

changes the word, which, to unchaste ears at least,

might not have sounded so well, and instead of <f)L-

Xelv, expresses himself thus: yydwa Be 6 'Irjaov^

rrjv MdpOav, k. t. X. (ver. 5). We have an instruct-

ive example of the like variation between the two

words, and out of the same motives, at Wisd. viii.

2, 3. At the same time the ^Ckdv is not unusual to

express the affection between persons of different

sexes, and this where no passion, no l/jw?, honour-

able or dishonourable, is intended, if the case be

one where nearness of blood at once and of itself

68 SYNONYMS OF THE

precludes the supposition of such, as that of a

brother to a sister. See, for instance, Xenophon,

Mem. ii. 7, 9, 11, a very useful passage in respect

of the relation in which the two w^ords stand to one

another, and which shows us how the notions of

respect and reverence are continually implied in

the a^yairdv, which, though of course not excluded

by, are still not involved in, the (faXelv. Out of this

which has been said it may be explained, that

while men are continually bidden afyairav rbv Oeov

(Matt. xxii. 37 ; Luke x. 27 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3), and

good men declared to do so (Rom. viii. 28 ; 1 Pet.

i. 8 ; 1 John iv. 21), the (piXelp rov Qeov is com-

manded to them never. The Father, indeed, both

ayaira rbv Tlov (John iii. 35), and also (f)i\el rbv

Tlov (John V. 20) ; with the first of which statements

such passages as Matt. iii. 17, with the second, as

John i. IS ; Prov. viii. 22, 30, may be brought into

connexion.

In almost all these passages of the I^ew Testa-

ment, the Yulgate, by the help of 'diligo' and

* amo,' has preserved and marked the distinction,

which in each case we have been compelled to let

go. It is especially to be regretted that at John

xxi. 15—17 we have not been able to retain it, for

the alternations there are singularly instructive, and

if we would draw the whole meaning of the pas-

sage forth, must not escape us unnoticed. On occa-

NEW TESTAMENT. 69

sion of that threefold "Lovest tliou Me?" which

the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first,

a^aira^i fxe ; At this moment, when all the pulses

in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beat-

ing with an earnest afiection toward his Lord, this

word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold ; not suffi-

ciently expressing the warmth of his personal affec-

tion toward Him. Besides the question itself, which

grieves and hurts Peter (ver. 17), there is an addi-

tional pang in the form which the question takes,

sounding as though it were intended to put him at

a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep

him there ; or at least as not permitting him to ap-

proach so near to Him as fain he would. He there-

fore in his answer substitutes for it the word of a

more personal love, ^tXw o-e (ver. 15). WhenChrist repeats the question in the same words as at

the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his

(^Ckoi for the a^^aira^i of his Lord (ver. 16). Andnow at length he has conquered ; for when

the third time his Master puts the question to

him. He does it with the word which Peter feels

will alone express all that is in his heart, and

instead of the twice repeated a^yairas^ his word

is (jiCkeh now (ver. 17). Tlie question, grievous

in itself to Peter, as seeming to imply a doubt

in his love, is not any longer made more griev-

ous still, by the peculiar shape which it as-

70 SYNONYMS OF THE

sumes. ' All tliis subtle and delicate play of feeling

disappears perforce, where the variation in the

words used is incapable of being reproduced.

Let me observe in conclusion that e/jo)?, ipav,

ipaaT7]<^^ never occur in the l^ew Testament, but

the two latter occasionally in the Old ; €paarrj<;

generally in a dishonourable sense (Ezek. xvi. S3

;

Hos. ii. 6) ;yet once or twice (as "Wisd. viil. 2

;

Prov. iv. 6) in a more honourable meaning, not as

' amasius,' but ' amator.' A word or two on the

causes of this their significant absence may here

find place. In part, no doubt, the explanation of

this absence is, that these words by the corrupt use

of the world had become so steeped in earthly sen-

sual passion, carried such an atmosphere of this

about them, that the truth of God abstained from

the defiling contact with them;yea, found out a

new word for itself rather than betake itself to one

of these. For it should never be forgotten that the

substantive djaTri] is purely a Christian word, no

example of its use occurring in any heathen writer

whatever; the utmost they attained to here was

(piXavOpcoTrla and (pLXaBeXcpLa, and the last indeed

never in any sense but as the love between brethren

in blood. This is Origen's explanation in an inter-

* Bengel generally has the honour rem acu tetigisse : here he

has singularly missed it, and is wholly astray : ayairau, amare, est

necessitudinis et affectus ; (piheTy, diligere, judicii.

NEW testa:siext. 71

esting discussion on the subject, Prol. in Cant. vol.

iii. pp. 28—30. But the reason may lie deeper than

this. "E/jo)?, like so many other words, might have

been assumed into nobler uses, might have been

consecrated anew, desj)ite of the deep degradation

of its past history ;^ and there were beginnings al-

ready of this, in the Platonist use of the word, as

the longing and yearning love after that unseen but

eternal Beauty, the faint vestiges of which mayhere be everywhere traced." But in the very fact

that epw? did express this yearning love (in Plato's

exquisite mythus, Synvp. 203 J, "Epo)<i is the child

of nevLa\ lay the real unfitness of the word to set

forth that Christian love, which is not merely the

sense of need, of emptiness, of poverty, with the

* On the attempt which some Christian writers have made to

distinguish between ' amor ' and ' dilectio ' or ' caritas,' see Augus-

tine, De Civ. Dei, xiv, Y : K^onnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectio-

nem sive earitatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem acci-

piendam esse in bono, amorem in malo. He shows, by many ex-

amples of 'dilectio' and 'diligo' used in an ill sense in the Latin

Scriptures, of 'amor' and 'amo' in a good, the impossibility of

maintaining any such distinction.

" I cannot regard as a step in this direction the celebrated

words of Ignatius, Ad Rom. 7 : 6 i/xhs epas ia-Taupwrai. It is far

more consistent with the genius of these Ignatian Epistles to take

epws subjectively here; "My love of the world is crucified," i. «.

with Christ, rather than objectively : " Christ, the object of my love,

is crucified."

72 SYNONYMS OF THE

longing after fulness, not the yearning after an in-

visible Beauty ; but a love to God and to man,

whicli is the consequence of a love from God, al-

ready shed abroad in the hearts of His people.

The mere longing and yearning, which e/jo)? at the

best would imply, has given place since the Incar-

nation to the love which is not in desire only, but

also in possession.

§ xiii.

—

OdXaaaa^ TriXayo^.

Oakaacra^ like the Latin ' mare,' is the sea as

contrasted with the land (Gen. i. 10 ; Matt, xxiii.

15 ; Acts iv. 24). ne\ayo<^, closely allied with

TrXaf, TrXaru?, ' flat,' is the level uninterruj)ted ex-

panse of open water, the ' altum mare,' as distin-

guished from those portions of it broken by islands,

shut in by coasts and headlands.^ Hippias, in

Plato's Gorgias (338 a)^ charges the eloquent soph-

ist, Prodicus, with a (pevyeiv et9 to TreXayo? rcov

^ It need not be observed that, adopted into Latin, it has the

same meaning:

Ut pelagus tenuere rates, nee jam amplius ulla

Occurrit tellus, maria undique et undique coelum.

Virgil, u£n. v. 8, 9.

NEW TESTAMENT. 73

Xoyojv, aiTOKpw^avra yi]v.^ Ereadtli, and not depth,

save as quite an accessoiy notion, and as that which

will probably find place in this open sea, lies in the

word. Thns the murmuring Isarelites, in Philo

( Vit Mos. 35), liken to a irekayo^ the illimitable

sand-flats of the desert ; and in Herodotus (ii. 92),

the I^ile overflowing Egypt is said irekayit^eiv to,

irehla^ which yet it does not cover beyond the dej)th

of a few feet. A passage which illustrates w^ell the

distinction between the words, occurs in the Timceus

of Plato (25 c/, 5), where the title of iriXajo^ is re-

fused to the Mediterranean sea ; that is but a har-

bour, with the narrow entrance between the Pillars

of Hercules for its mouth ; only the great Atlantic

Ocean beyond can be acknowledged as aXr)6cv6<;

TTo^'To?, TreXayo? oWo)?. And compare Aristotle, DeMien. 3 ; and again, Meteorol. ii. 1 : peovaa S' rj

OdXarra t^aiveraL Kara Ta? arevoTrjra^; [the Straits

of Gibraltar], clttov Sea 7r€pLe)(^ovaav yrjv eh [JUKpov

Ik jueyoKov avvdyerai ireKayo^;.

It might seem, at first sight, as if this distinc-

tion did not hold good in one of the only two pas-

sages where the word occurs in the Kew Testament,

namely Matt, xviii. 6 : "It were better for him that

a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that

he vjere drowned in the dejpth of the sea " {koX Kara-

^ Tliis last idiom reminds us of the French 'noyerlaterre,' ap-

plied to a ship sailing out of sight of laud.

4

*J4: SYNONYMS OF THE

iTovTLadfj eV TU) TreXdyei r^? daXda-arj^). But tlie

sense of depth, wliicli undoubtedly the passage re-

quires, is here to be looked for in the KarairovTia-

6fj:

—

7r6vTo<;j which indeed does not itself occur in

the JSTew Testament, being connected with ^ddo^,

^evdo^, perhaps the same word as this last, and im-

j)lying the sea in its perj)e7idicular depth, as TreXa-

709 {cequor maris), the same in its horizontal dimen-

sions and extent.

§ xiv.

—

aK\r]p6<;, avarrjpos.

In the parable of the Talents (Matt, xxv.), the

slothful servant charges his master with being

GKkrjpos, " an hard man " (ver. 24) ; while in the

corresponding parable of St. Luke it is avaTrjpu<;,

" an austere man " (xix. 21), which he accuses him

of being. It follows that the words are to a certain

degree interchangeable ; but not that their mean-

ings run exactly parallel throughout. They will be

found, on the contrary, very capable of discrimina-

tion and distinction, however the distinction maynot affect the inter]3retation of these parables.

^K\7]p6<;, derived fi-om cr/ceXXw, aKXrjvai, ' arefa-

cio,' is properly an ej)ithet expressing that which

through lack of moisture is hard and dry, and thus

XEW testame:nt <o

rougli and disagreeable to the toucn ; nay more,

warped and intractable. It is then transferred to

the region of ethics, in which is by far its most fre-

quent use ; and where it expresses the roughness,

hai-shness, and intractability in the moral nature of

a man. Thus it is an epithet applied to Xabal (1

Sam. XXV. 3), and no other could better express the

evil condition of the churl. Looking to the com-

pany which aK\7]p6<; keeps, we find it commonly

associated with such words as the following : a^-

fL7}p6<: (Plato, S^mj?. 195 cT) ; avTirvn-o^ {TAecet loo

a) ; dypLo<; (Aristotle, Ethic, iv. 8) ; Plutarch (Cons,

ad Apoll. 3) ; arpeiTTo^ (Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1.

61:, lit) ; 'TTovrjpo^ (1 Sam. xxv. 3). It is set over

against €v7]6lk6<; (Plato, Cliarm. 175 d)\ fJLoXaKo^

{Protag. 331 d);piaKdafco^ {Symj?. 195 d).

Ava-TTjpo^, which in the Xew Testament only ap-

pears in the single passage abeady refeiTed to, and

never in the Old, is in its primary meaning applied

to such things as draw together and contract the

tongue, which are, as we say, harsh and stringent

to the palate, as new wine, not yet mellowed by

age, unripe fr'uit, and the like. Thus, when the

poet Cowper describes himself, when a boy, as

gathering from the hedgerows " sloes austere^'' he

uses the word with exactest propriety. Eut just as

we have transfeiTcd * strict ' (from ^ sti'ingo '), to the

region of ethics, so the Greeks transferred avar-qposy

76 SYNONYMS OF THE

the image here being borrowed from the taste, as in

aKk7)p6<i it is borrowed from the touch. ISTeither

does this word set out anything amiable or attractive

in him to whom it is applied. We find it in such

company as the following;joined with ar]hr)^ (Plato,

Pol. 398 a) ; aKparo^ and avr)hvvTo<; (Plutarch, Conj.

PrcBG. 29) ; avr}hv(TTo<i {Phoc. 5) ; avdi/caaro^ ' (Pe

Adul. et Am. 14). We find, further, Aristotle

{Ethic. Pudem. vii. 5), contrasting the avcrTT]p6<;

with the evrpdireXos, which last word he uses in a

good sense.

At the same time it will be observed that in

none of the e23ithets with which we have thus found

avarr)p6<s associated, is there that deej) moral per-

versity which lies in those with which aK\r)p6<; is

linked ; and, moreover, it is met not seldom in more

honourable company ; thus it is joined with acocjipcov

continually (Plutarch, Co72J. Prcjec. vii. 29 ;Qucest.

Gr. 40) ; while the Stoics were wont to affirm all

good men to be avarrjpoi (Diogenes Laertius, vii.

1. 64, 117) : fcal ava-T7)pov9 Se cj^aaiv elvai 7rdvTa<i

Tou? aiTOvhaiov<i tu> fjirjre avrovs 7rpo<; rjSoviji' ofiikelVj

fjL7]T6 Trap' aXKdov rd tt/oo? rjBovrjv 7rpoaSe')(^6a6at. In

Latin 'austerus' is predominantly an epithet of

1 In Plutarch this word is used in an ill sense, as self-willed,

'eigensinnig;' being one of the niau}', in all languages, which, be-

ginning with a good sense (Aristotle, Eihlc. Nic. iv. 7), ended with

a bad.

NEW TESTAMENT. 77

honour (Doderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p. 232).

Tlie ' austerus ' is one of an earnest, severe charac-

ter, opposed to all levity ; needing, it may very well

be, to watch against harshness, rigour, or morose-

ness, into which his character might easily degene-

rate (non austeritas ejus tristis, non dissoluta sit

comitas, Quintilian, ii. 2. 5), but as yet not charged

with these.

We may distmguish, then, between aKkripo^ and

av<TT7]p6<^ thus : aKXrjpo^, applied to any, conveys

always a reproach and a severe one, indicates a

character harsh, inhuman, and (in the earlier use

of the word) uncivil ; avaTrjp6<;, on the contrar}^,

does not always convey a reproach at all, any more

than the German ' streng,' which is very different

from ' hart ;' and even where it does, yet one of com-

paratively a milder and less opprobrious description.

§ XV.

—

eLKcov, ofjLoicocrc^, ofMOLco/xa.

There is a double theological interest attending

the distinction between eUcov and the two words

which are here brought into comparison with it

;

the first belonging to the Arian controversy, and

turning on the fitness or unfitness of the words

before us to set forth the relation of the Son to the

78 SYNONYMS OF THE

Father ; while tlie other is an interest that might

seem at hrst sight remote from any controversy,

which yet has contrived to insinnate itself into more

than one, namely, whether there be a distinction,

and if so w^iat it is, between the image {eUcov) of

God, in whicJi^ and the likeness {ofxoLcocrts:) of God,

aj^ter which man at the first is declared to have been

created (Gen. i. 26).

And first, for the distinction drawn between the

words during the course of the long Arian debate.

It is evident that eiKcov (from eoiKo) and o/xolcD/xa

might often be used as equivalent, and in many po-

sitions it would be indifferent whether of the two

were employed. Thus they are convertibly used

by Plato {Phceclr. 250 h), o/jLocoy/naTa and eiKove^;

alike, to set forth the earthly patterns and resem-

blances of the archetypal things in the heavens.

"When, however, the Church found it necessary to

raise up bulwarks against Arian error and Arian

equivocation, it drew a strong distinction between

these words, one not arbitrary, but having essential

diflPerence for its ground. Elkcov (= imago, imita-

go) always supposes a prototype, that which it not

merely resembles, but from which it is drawm. It

is the German 'Abbild,' which invariably presumes

a ' Yorbild ; ' Gregory !N^azianzene, Orat. 36 : avTTj

fyap eiKovo^ (pvat^;, fiijuLrj/jLa elvau rod ap')(^6TV7rov. (Pe-

tavius, De Trin. vi. 5, 6.) Thus, the monarch's

NEW TESTAMENT. 79

head on the coin is eUdtv (Matt. xxii. 20) ; the reflec-

tion of the sun in the water is its eUoov (Plato,

Phcedo^ 99 d) ; the statue in stone or other material

is elK(ov (Rev. xiii. 14) ; the child is efiylrv^o^ ecKcop

of his parents. But in the ofMoicofia or 6fxoL(ocrL<^,

while there is resemblance, it by no means follows

that it has been gotten in this way, that it is de-

rived : it may be accidental, as one egg is like

another, as there may exist a resemblance between

two men who are not in any way akin to one another.

Thus, as Augustine in an instructive passage brings

out {Qucesf. Ixxxiii. 74), the 4mago' (= eUcov) in-

cludes and involves the ' similitudo,' but the ' simi-

litudo ' (= 6fioLcocrL<;) does not involve the ' imago.'

The reason will at once be manifest why elKcov is

applied to the Son, as the expression of his relation

to the Father (1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. i. 15 ; cf. "Wisd. of

Sol. vii. 26) ; while among all the words of the

family of oyLtoio?, not merely none are so employed

in the Scripture, but they have all been expressly

forbidden and condemned by the Church ; that is,

so soon as ever it has had reason to suspect foul

play, and that they are not used in good faith.

Thus Hilary, addressing an Arian, says, " I may use

them, to exclude Sabellian error ; but I will not al-

low you to do so, whose intention is altogether dif-

ferent " {Co?i. Constant. Imp. 17—21).

EUcav, when employed of the Son, like %a/3a/c-

80 SYNONYMS OF THE

T7Jp and airav'^/aa^a (Ileb. i. 3), witli wliicli theologi-

cally it is nearly related, is indeed inadequate^ but,

at the same time, it is true as far as it goes ; and in

human language, employed for the setting forth of

truths which transcend human thought, we must

be content with approximative assertions, seeking

for the complement of their inadequacy, that which

shall redress their insufficiency, from some other

quarter. Each has its weak side, which must be

supported by strength derived from elsewhere.

EIkcov is not without its weakness ; for what image

is of equal worth and dignity with the prototype

from which it is imaged ? Eut it has also its strong

side ; it at any rate expresses derivation / while

ojioLOTT}'^^ 6jioLwaL<;y or any other words of this fami-

ly, expressing mere similarity, if they did not ac-

tually imply, might yet suggest, and if they sug-

gested, would seem to justify, error, and that with

no compensating advantage. Exactly the same

considerations were at work here, which, in respect

of the verbs >yevvav and kti^€lv, did in this same con-

troversy cause the Church to allow the one, and to

condemn the other.

The second interest in the discrimination of these

words lies in the question which has often been dis-

cussed, whether in that great iiat announcing man's

original constitution, "Let us make man in our

NEW TESTAMENT. 81

image (eUdiv LXX., obs Heb.), after our likeness "

{6fjLoi(ocrL<; LXX., r.^ia'n Heb.), anything different was

intended by the second than by the first, or whether

the second is merely to be regarded as consequent

upon the first, " in our image " and therefore

" after our likeness." Both are claimed for man in

the ISTew Testament : the eUajv, 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; the

6/jLOLcoac<;, Jam. iii. 9.

Many of the early Fathers, as also of the

Schoolmen, maintained that there was a real dis-

tinction. Thus, the Alexandrians taught that the

eUayv was somethins; in which men were created,

being common to all, and continuing to man after

the fall as before (Gen. ix. 6), while the o/j-oicoai^

was something toicard which man was created, that

he might strive after and attain it ; Origen, Princ.

iii. 6 : Imaginis dignitatem in prima conditione per-

cepit, similitudinis vero perfectio in consummatione

servata est ; cf. in Joan. tom. xx. 20. It can hardly

be doubted that the Platonist studies and predilec-

tions of the Christian theologians of Alexandria had

some influence upon them here, and on this distinc-

tion which they drew. It is well known that Plato

presented the 6/ioLova6ao ra> OeS Kara to Svvarov

{Thecet. 176 a) as the highest scope of man's life;

and indeed Clement {Strom, ii. 22) brings the great

passage of Plato to bear upon this very discussion.

The Schoolmen, in like manner, drew a distinction.

82 SYNONYMS OF THE

although it was not this one, between '' tnese two

divine stamps upon man." Lombard, Sent. ii. dist.

16; H. de S. Yictore, De Animd, ii. 25 ; De Sac.

i. 6. 2 : Imago secundum cognitionem veritatis,

similitudo secundum amorem virtutis ; the first de-

claring the intellectual, as the second the moral pre-

eminence, in which man was created. Many, how-

ever, have refused to acknowledge these, or anj

other distinctions between the two declarations ; as

Baxter, for instance, who, in his interesting reply to

Elliott's, the Indian Missionary's, inquiries on the

subject, rejects them all as groundless conceits,

though himself in general only too anxious for dis-

tinction and division {Zife, vol. ii. p. 296).

It is hard to think that they were justified in

this rejection ; for myself I should rather believe

that the Alexandrians were very near the truth, if

they did not grasj) it altogether. There are emi-

nently significant parts of Scripture, where the

words of Jerome, originally applied to the Apoca-

lypse, ' quot verba tot sacramenta,' can hardly be

said to contain an exaggeration. Such a part is the

history of man's creation and his fall, in the first

three chaj^ters of Genesis. We may expect to find

mysteries there ; -prophetic intimations of truths

which it might require ages and ages to develop.

And, without attempting to draw any very strict

line between eiKMv and ofjioma-i^^ or their Hebrew

NEW TESTAMENT. " 83

originals, I tliink we may be bold to say that tlie

whole history of man, not only in his original crea-

tion, but also in his after restoration and reconstitn-

tion in the Son, is significantly wrapped up in this

double statement; which is double for this Tery

cause, that the Divine Mind did not stop at the

contemplation of his first creation, but looked on to

him as " renewed in knowledge after the image of

Him that created him " (Col. iii. 10) ; because it

knew that only as partaker of this double benefit

would he attain the true end for which he was made.

§ xvi.

—

acrcoTia^ daeXyeia.

The man who is aawro^^ it is little likely that he

will not be dae\yr)<^ also ; and yet doroaria and dorek-

yeia are not identical in meaning ; they will express

difierent aspects of his sin, or at any rate contem-

plate it from difi'erent points of view.

And first dawTia^ a word in which heathen ethics

said much more than they intended or knew. It

occurs thrice in the l^ew Testament (Eph. v. 18

;

Tit. i. 6 ; 1 Pet. iv. 4) ; once only in the Septuagint

(Prov. xxviii. Y). Besides this we have the adverb

a(7a>Tct)9, Luke xiv. 13 ; and dacoro^ once in the Sep-

tuagint, Prov. vii. 11. At Eph. v, 18 we translate

84 * SYNONY^lS OF THE

it ' excess;

' in tlie other two places, ^ not,' as the

t,o)v cKTOiTco^, 'in riotous living;' the Yulgate al-

ways by ' luxuria ' and ' luxuriose,' words which, it

is hardly needful to observe, imply in Latin much

more of loose and profligate living than our ' luxu-

ry ' and ' luxuriously ' do 7ioio. The word is some-

times taken in a passive sense, as though it were

aacoa-TO<;, one who cannot be saved, acal^eadai fij]

Svvdfievo<;, as Clement of Alexandria (Pcedag. ii. 1)

expressly explains it, = ' 23erditus,' ' heillos,' or as

we used to say, a ' losel.' Grotius : Genus hominum

ita immersorum vitiis, ut eorum salus deplorata sit;

the word being, so to speak, prophetic of their

doom to whom it was applied. ' This, however, was

quite its rarer use ; more commonly the daoiTo<; is

not one who cannot be saved, but who cannot him-

self save, or spare ;== ' prodigus,' or, again to use

a good old English word which we have now let go,

a ' scatterling.' Aristotle notes that this, a too

great prodigality in the use of money, is the ear-

^ Thus, in the AdelpJd of Terence (iv. 1), one' having spoken

of a youth * luxu perdiium,^ proceeds

:

Ipsa si cupiat Salus,

bervare prorsus non potest hanc familiam.

K"o doubt in the Greek original from \rliicli Terence translated tliis

comedy, there was a play here on the word &(ra}Tos, which the ab-

sence of the verb 'salvare' fi'om the Latin language has hindered

Terence from preserving.

NEW TESTAMEXT. 85

liest meaning of dacoria, giving this as its definition

(JEtliic. Nic. iv. 1. 3) ; dawtla iarLv virep^oXr) irepl

XPVP'CiTa. The word forms part of his ethical ter-

minology; the iXevOepco^, or the truly liberal man,

is with him one who keeps the golden mean be-

tween the two uKpa, namely, dacorla on one side,

and dvekevOepia or stinginess, on the other. And it

is in this view of dacorla that Plato {jPoI. viii. 560 e),

when he names the various catachrestic terms, ac-

cording to which men call their vices by the names

of the virtues which they caricature, makes them

style these dacorla, fieyaXoirpeireia.^ It is with the

word at this stage of its meaning that Plutarch

joins iroXvreXeia {De A])otheg. Cat. 1).

But it is easy to see, and xYristotle does not fail

to note, that one who is aacoro^ in this sense of

spending too much, of laying out his expenditure

on a more magnificent scheme than his means will

warrant, slides too easily under the fatal influence

of flatterers, and of all tliose temptations with which

he has surrounded himself, into a spending on his

own lusts and appetites of that with which he ]3art3

60 easily, laying it out for the gratification of his

own sensual desires ; and that thus a new thought

finds its way into the word, so that it indicates not

only one of a too expensive, but also and chiefly,

' Quintilian {InU. viii. 36) : Pro luxuria liberalitas dicitur.

86 SYNONYMS OF THE

of a dissolute, clebauclied, profligate manner of liv-

ing ; the German ' liiderlicli.' These are his words

{Ethic. Nic, iv. 1. 36) : hCo koli ciKoKaaTOb avrwv

\to)v aaonTcdv] elaiv ol iroXkor ev^^epco? jap avciKi-

O-K0VT6S zeal et? ra? d/co\aala<; hairavTjpoi elcri, koX Bi.a

TO /i7] 7rp6<; TO KoXov ^rjp, Trpo? tcl^ r]hova<^ airoKki-

vovaiv. Here he gives the reason of what he has

stated before : tov<; aKpaTel^ koI ek aKoXaalav Sa-

iravripov<i aaooTov^; Kakov[X€v.

In this sense aacoTia is nsed in the ]^ew Testa-

ment ; as we find dacoTiaL and KpaiiraXai (Herodian,

ii. 5) joined elsewhere together. It will of conrse

at once be felt that the two meanings will often run

into one another, and that it will be hardly possible

to keep them strictly asunder. Thus see the various

examples of the dacoTo?, and of dawTLa, which

Athenseus (iv. 59—67) gives ; they are sometimes

rather of one kind, sometimes of the other. The

waster of his goods will be very often a waster

of ever^^thing besides, will lay waste himself— his

time, his faculties, his powers ; and, we may add,

uniting the active and passive meanings of the word,

will be himself laid waste ; he loses himself, and is

lost.

There is a diiference in daeXycia, a word the

derivation of which is wrapped in much obscurity

;

some going so far to look for it as to Selge, a city,

of Pisidia, whose inhabitants were infamous for

NEW TESTA:ME2sT. 8'7

their vices ; while others derive it from OeXyeiv,

probably the same word as the German ' schwel-

gen.' Of more frequent nse than dacorla in the

Xew Testament, it is by ns generally rendered ' las-

civiousness ' (Mark vii. 22 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Gal. v.

19 ; Eph. iv. 19 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; Jude 4) ; though

sometimes * wantonness ' (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 2 Pet. ii.

18) ; as in the Yulgate either by ' impudicitia ' or

* luxuria.' If our translators or the Latin intended

by these renderings to express exclusively impuri-

ties and lusts of the flesh, they have certainly given

to the word too narrow a meaning. The aaeXjeia,

which it will be observed is not grouped with

fleshly lusts, in the catalogue of sins at Mark vii.

21, 22, is best described as petulance, or wanton in-

solence ; being somewhat stronger than the Latin

' protervitas,' though of the same nature, more

nearly 'petulantia.' The acreXyrj^, as Passow ob-

serves, is very closely allied to the v/SpLariKo^ and

a/coXao-To?, being one who acknowledges no re-

straints, who dares whatsoever his caprice and wan-

ton insolence suggest.^ ]^one, of course, would

deny that aa-ikyeta may display itself in acts of what

we call ' lasciviousness •

' for there are no worse dis-

* Thus Witsius (Jlelet. Lcid. p. 465) observes : aaixyeiav diei

posse omnon tarn ingenii, quam moruni proterviam, petulantiam,

lasciviatD, quaj ab ^schine opponitur t^ fxerpioT-qTi kuI ewtppocrvvri.

88 SYNONYMS OF THE

plays of £;/S/3t? than in these ; but still it is their

petulance, their insolence, which causes them to

deserve this name ; and of the two renderings of

the word which we have mad6, ' wantonness ' seems

to me the preferable, standing as it does, by the

double meaning which it has, in a remarkable

ethical connexion with the w^ord which we now are

considering.

In a multitude of passages the notion of lasci-

viousness is altogether absent from the word. Thus

Demosthenes, making mention of the blow which

Meidias had given him, characterises it as in keep-

ing with the known aaeXyeca of the man {Con. Meid.

514). Elsewhere he joins Bea-7roTLKco<; and ao-eXyw?,

ao-eXyw? and Trpoirerm. As daeXyeca Plutarch

characterises a like outrage on the part of Alcibi-

ades, committed against an honourable citizen of

Athens {Alcib. 8) ; indeed, the whole j)icture which

he draws of Alcibiades is the full-length portrait

of an acreXy?}?. Josephus ascribes daeXyeia and

fiavLa to Jezebel, daring, as she did, to build a tem-

ple of Baal in the Holy City itself {Antt. viii. 13.

1) ; and the same to a Roman soldier, who, being

on guard at the Temple during the Passover, pro-

voked by an act of grossest indecency a tumult, in

which great multitudes of lives were lost {Antt. xx.

6. 3). And for other passages, helpful to a fixing

of the true meaning of daekyeia^ see 3 Mace. ii. 26;

NEW TESTAMENT. 89

Polybius, viii. li. 1 ; Eusebius, H.E. v. 1. 26 ; and

the quotations given in Wetstein's New Testament,

vol. i. p. 588. It, then, and aacnTia are clearly dis-

tinguishable ; the fundamental notion of dacorla

being wastefulness and riotous excess ; of dcreXy^ca,

lawless insolence and wanton caj^rice.

§ xvii.

—

diyycivcOj dirTO/JLai^ '\ln]\a(f)dco.

We are sometimes enabled, by the help of an

accurate synonymous distinction, at once to reject

as untenable some interpretation of a passage of

Scripture, which might, but for this, have main-

tained itself as at least a possible explanation of it.

Thus is it with Heb. xii. 18 :" For ye are not come

unto the mount that might he touched " {-yjrrjXacjico-

fieva Spec). Many interpreters have seen allusion

in these words to Ps. civ. 32 :'' He toucheth the

hills and they smoke ; " and to the fact that, at the

giving of the Law, God did descend upon mount

Sinai, which " was altogether on a smoke, because

the Lord descended upon it " (Exod. xix. 18). But,

not to say that in such case we should expect a

perfect, as in the following KeKavjievw, still more

decisively against this is the fact that yjnjXacpdo) is

never used in the sense of so handling an object as

90 SYNONYMS OF THE

to exercise a moulding, modifying influence upon it,

but only to indicate a feeling of its surface (Luke

xxiv. 39 ; 1 John i. 1) ; often such a feeling as is

made with the intention of learning its composition

(Gen. xxvii. 12, 21, 22) ; while not seldom the word

signifies no more than a feeling for or after an ob-

ject, without any actual coming in contact with it

at all. It is used continually to express a groping

in the dark (Job v. 14), or of the blind (Isa. lix. 10;

Gen. xxvii. 12 ; Deut. xxviii. 29 ; Judg. xvi. 26)

;

and tropically. Acts xvii. 27 ; with which we maycompare Plato, Phced. 99 J ; '\^ri\a<f>wvTe<i coairep iv

G-Korei. The yjrTjXacfxio/jLevov opo^^ in this passage, is

beyond a doubt the ' mons jjal{pahilvs

:

' " Ye are

not come," the Apostle would say, " to any material

mountain, like Sinai, caj)able, as such, of being

touched and handled ; not in this sense, to the

mountain that may be/t'Z^, but to the heavenly Jeru-

salem," to a voTjTov opo^i, and not to an aladrjTov.

The so handling of any object as to exert a

modifying influence upon it, the French ' manier,'

as distinguished from ' toucher,' the German ' betas-

ten,' as distinguished from 'beriihren,' would be

either aTrreadai ' or diy^dveiv. Of these the first

is stronger than the second ; aTrrea-Oac (= ' con-

^ In the passage alluded to already, Ps. civ. 32, tne words of

the Septuagint are, 6 aTrrSfievos twv opiwv, koX Kairvi^ovTai.

NEW TESTAMENT. 91

trectare'), than Oiy^/dveiv (Ps. civ. 15 ; 1 John v. 18),

as appears plainly in a passage of Xenophon {Cyroj?.

i. 3. 5), where the child Cyrus, rebuking his grand-

father's delicacies, says : 6tl ae opoj, orav /lev rov

dpTov dyjrrj, €l<; ovSev Trjv %et/ca airo'^diixevov^ orav Be

TovTcov riv6<i cyy;, 6v6v<; airoKaOaiprf rrjv %etpa €l<;

rd '^eLpofjLaKrpa, &)? Trdvv d-)^66pievo^. Our Version,

then, has just reversed the true order of the words,

when, at Col. ii. 21, it translates imtj dyjrr], /jirjBe yevar}^

firjhe 6lyr]^, " Touch not, taste not, handle not."

The first and last prohibitions should, in our Eng-

lish, just have changed their places, and the pas-

sage should stand, " Handle not, taste not, touch

not." How much more strongly will then come

out the ever ascending scale of superstitious pro-

hibition among the false teachers at Colosse.

' Handle not ' is not sufiicient ; they forbid to

' taste ' and, lastly, even to touch those things

from which, according to their notions, unclean-

ness might be derived. Beza well : Yerbum dlyeiv

a verbo d-TrreaOaL sic est distinguendum, ut decres-

cente semper oratione intelligatur crescere super-

stitio.

92 SYNONYMS OF THE

§ xviii.

—

iraXiyyevecTLay dvaKalvcocrifi.

^Avay€vp7](7L^, a word frequent enough in the

Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), no where

occurs in the Isew Testament ; although the verb

dvayevvdo) twice (1 Pet. i. 13, 23). Did we meet

dvayevvT](TL<; there, it would furnish a still closer

synonym to iraXLyjeveala than the dvafcaivcoaL<;,

which I propose to bring into comparison with it

:

yet that also is sufficiently close to justify the

attempt at once to compare and distinguish them.

It will be no small gain to the practical theologian,

to the minister of God's word, to be clear in his own

mind in respect of the relation between the two.

UaXiyyevea-ia naturally demands first to be con-

sidered. This is one of the many words which the

Gospel found, and, so to speak, glorified ; enlarged

the borders of its meaning ; lifted it up into a

higher sphere ; made it the expression of far deeper

thoughts, of far greater truths, than any of which

it had been the vehicle before. It was, indeed, al-

ready in use ; but, as the Christian new-birth was

not till after Christ's birth ; as men were not new-

born, till Christ was born (John i. 12) ; as their re-

generation did not go before, but only followed his

generation; so the word could not be used in this

NEW TESTA^IENT. vd

its highest, most mysterious sense, till that great

mysteiy of the birth of the Son of God into om*

world had actually found place. And yet it is ex-

ceedingly interesting to trace these its subordinate,

and, as they proved, preparatory uses. Thus, by

the Pythagoreans, as is well known, the word was

employed to express the transmigration of souls;

their reappearance in new bodies being called rrra-

XcyyeveaLa : Plutarch, De Esu Car. i. 7 ; ii. 6 ; DeIsid. et Osir. c. 35 : ^Oa-lptBo<; at avapLoaaeLs koX ira-

Xtyyevea-tal : De Ei aj). Del/p. 9 : aiToPm(jei<^ Kal

iraXiyyeveaiaL Among the Stoics the word set

forth the periodic renovation of the earth, when,

budding and blossoming in the spring-time, it woke

up from its winter sleep, nay, might be said even to

have revived from its winter death : Marc. Anton.

ii. 1 : TTiv 7repLoSLKr)v irdkiyyeveaiav rSiv oXcov. Ci-

cero {Ad Attic, vi. 6) calls his restoration to his

dignities and honours, after his return from exile,

' banc TraXiyyeveaiav nostram ;

' with which compare

Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 41. Josephus {Antt. xi. 3. 9)

characterises the restoration of the Jewish nation

after the Captivity, as rrjv avuKTi-jaiv koX TraXcyye-

vealav t?}? iraTpiho^. And, to cite one passage more,

Olympiodorus, a later Platonist, styles memory a

revival or iraXiyyeveata of knowledge {Journal des

Savans^ 1834, p. 488) : TTdkiyyeveaia Trj<; yvcoaeco^;

icTTCv 7] avafjivrjcrc^.

94 SYNONYMS OF THE

No one who lias carefully watched and weighed

the uses of iraXi'y'yevecrLa just adduced, and similar

ones which might be added, but will note that

while it has in them all the meaning of a recovery,

a change for the better, a revival, yet it never

reaches, or even approaches, the depth of meaning

which it has acquired in Christian language, and

which will now claim a little to be considered. The

word occurs never in the Old Testament {iraXiv yi-

veaOaL at Job xiv. 14), and only twice in the I^ew

(Matt xix. 28 ; Tit. iii. 5), but there (which is most

remarkable) apparently in different meanings. In

St. Matthew it seems plainly to refer to the new-

birth of the whole creation, the aTrofcarda-TaaLf; irdv-

Tcou (Acts iii. 21), which shall be when the Son of

Man hereafter comes in his glory ; while in St.

Paul's use of the word the allusion is plainly to the

new-birth of the single soul, which is now evermore

finding place in the waters of baptism. Shall wethen acquiesce in the conclusion that it is used in

diverse meanings ; that there is no common bond

which binds the two uses of it together ? By no

means ; all laws of language are violated by any

such supposition. The fact is, rather, that the word

by our Lord is used in a wider, by his Apostle in a

narrower meaning. They are two circles of mean-

ing, one more comprehensive than the other, but

their centre is the same. The irakLyyeveala of which

NEW TESTA]iIENT. 95

Scnj)tnre speaks, begins with the fiiKpoKoafiof; of

single souls ; but it does not end there ; it does not

cease its effectual working till it has embraced the

whole /laKpoKoa/jLo^ of the universe. The first seat

of the iraXtyyeveaia is the soul of man ; but, begin-

ning there, and establishing its centre there, it ex-

tends in ever widening circles. And, first, to his

body ; the day of resurrection will be the day of

TraXtyyeveala for it ; so that those Fathers had a

certain, though only a partial, right, as many as in-

terpreted the word at Matt. xix. 28, as though it had

been equivalent, and only equivalent, to az^ao-Tao-t?,

and who, as a consequence, themselves continually

used it as a synonym for ' resurrection ' (Eusebius,

Hist. Ecd. V. 1. 58 ; Suicer, TJies. s. v.). Doubtless

the word there includes, or presupposes, the resur-

rection, but it also embraces much more. Beyond

the day of resurrection, or it may be contempora-

neous with it, a day will come, when all nature shall

put ofi" its soiled work-day garments, and clothe it-

self in its holy-day attire, the day of the " restitu-

tion of all things " (Acts iii. 21) ; of the new heaven

and the new earth (Eev. xxi. 1) ; the day of which

Paul speaks, as one in expectation of which all

creation is groaning and travailing until now (Rom.

viii. 21—23). Man is the present subject of the

irakiyyeveala^ and of the wondrous transformation

which it implies ; but in that day it will have in-

96 SYNONYMS OF THE

eluded within its limits tlie whole world, of which

man is the central figure : and here is the reconci-

liation of the two passages, in one of which it is

spoken of as pertaining to the single soul, in the

other to the whole redeemed creation. Thej allude

both to the same fact, but in different e]30chs and

stages of its development.

But now to consider dpaKaivcoat^, the relation mwhich it stands to TraXcyyevea-La, and the exact limits

of the meaning of each. This word, which is pecu-

liar to the Greek of the New Testament, occurs

there also only twice— once in connexion with Tra-

Xtyyevea-la (Tit. iii. 5), and again Rom. xii. 2 ; but

we have the verb dva/caLvoo), which also is an exclu-

sively Xew Testament form, at 2 Cor. iv. 16 ; Col.

iii. 10 ; and the more classical dvaKaLvl^a), Heb. vi.

6, from which the nouns, frequent in the Greek

Fathers, dvaKaiviaiio^ and dvaKalvi(Ti<^^ are more im-

mediatel}" drawn ; we have also dvaveoco (Eph. iv.

23) ; all in the same uses. It would be impossible

better to express the relation in which the two

stand to each other, than has been already done in

our Collect for Christmas day, in which we pray

" that we being regenerate," in other words, having

been already made the subjects of the iraXiyyeveaLa,

" may daily be renewed by the Holy Spirit,"—maycontinually know the dvaKalvwai^ IIvevfxaro<; 'Ayiou.

In this Collect, uttering, as so many others of them

NEW TESTA^IENT. 97

do, profound theological truth in its most accurate

forms, the ' regeneration ' is spoken of as past, as

having found place once for all, while the ' renewal

'

or ' renovation ' is that which ought now to be daily

proceeding— this avaKalvcoai^ being that gradual

restoration of the Divine image, which is going for-

ward in him who, through the new birth, has come

under the transforming^ powers of the world to

come. It is called " the renewal of the Holy Ghost^''

inasmuch as He is the ' causa efficiens ' by whomalone this renewal, this putting on of the new man,

is carried forward.

We see then, of the two, that they are indisso-

lubly bound together— that the second is the follow-

ing up, the consequence, the completion of the first

;

yet, for all this, that they are not to be confounded.

The irakiyyeveaia is that great free act of God's

mercy and power, whereby He causes the sinner to

pass out of the kingdom of darkness into that of

light, out of death into life ; it is the avwOev 'yewrj.

drjvac of John iii. 3 ; the jevvrjdrjvaL i/c ©eov of 1

John V. 4, sometimes called, therefore, deoyevea-la

^ MeTaixopcpuvaOe ry avaKaivdaei tov voos, Itorn. xii. 2. The

striking -words of Seneca, JEp. 6, Intelligo me emendari non tan-

tum, sed transfigicrari, are far too big to express any benefits

which he could have gotten from his books of philosophy; they

reach out after blessings to be obtained, not in the schools of men,

but only in the Church of the living God.

5

98 SYNONYMS OF THE

by Greek theologians ; tlie jevvrjOrjvac i/c airopa<i

a(j)6dpTov of 1 Pet. i. 23. In it,— not in the prepa-

rations for it, but in the act itself,— the subject of

it is passive, even as the child has nothing to do

with its own birth. But it is very diiferent as res-

pects the avaKalvoxjL';. This is the gradual conform-

ing of the man more and more to that new spiritual

world into which he has been introduced, and in

which he now lives and moves ; the restitution of

the Divine image ; and in all this, so far from be-

ing passive, he must be a fellow-worker with God.

That was ' regeneratio,' this is ' renovatio.' They

must not be separated, but neither may they be con-

founded.* What infinite confusions, conflicts, scan-

dals, obscurations of God's truth on this side and

on that, have arisen from the one course as from the

other.

§ xix.

—

al(T')(yv7j, alSco^,

Theee was a time when the Greek language pos-

sessed only the word alBa)<; ; which then occupied

the two regions of meaning afterward divided be-

^ Gerhard {Loc. Theoll. xxi. 7. 113): Renovatio, licet a regene-

ratione proprie et specialiter accept^- distinguatiir, individuo ta-

men et perpetuo nexu cum eS, est conjimcta.

NEW TESTAATENT. 99

tweeii it and alax^vr}. AlSoo^ bad at that time the

same duplicity of meaning as is latent in the Latin

^pudor,' in our own ^ shame.' Thus in Homer

alax^^V never occurs, while sometimes, as II. v.

787, atSfw? is used on occasions when alaxvvr) would,

in later Greek, have necessarily been employed

:

elsewhere Homer employs alBco^ in that sense which,

at a later period, it vindicated as exclusively its own.

And even Thucydides (i. 84), in a difficult and

doubtful passage where both words occur, is by

many considered to have employed them as equi-

pollent and convertible. Generally, however, in

the Attic period of the language, the words were

not accounted synonymous. Ammonius formally

distinguishes them in a philological, as the Stoics

in an ethical, interest ; and almost every passage

in which either word occurs is an evidence of the

real difference existing between them. Yet the

distinction has not always been quite successfully

seized.

Thus it has been sometimes said that atSco? is

the shame which hinders one from doing a disho-

nourable thing ; ala'yyvri is the disgrace^ outward or

inward, which follows on having done it (Luke xiv.

9). This distinction, while it has its truth, is yet

not an exhaustive one ; and if we were thereu23on

to assume that ala'xyv'n was thus only retrosjDective,

the consequence of things unworthily done, it would

100 SYNONYMS OF THE

be an erroneous one ; ^ for it would be abundantly

easy to show that alaxvvr} is continually used to ex-

press that feeling wbicli leads to shun what is un-

worthy out of a prospective anticipation of disho-

nour. Thus one definition (Plat. Def. 416) makes

it <p6^o<i iirl TTpoaBoKia dBo^la<; : and Aristotle in-

cludes the future in his comprehensive definition

{Ilhet. ii. 6) : eo-ro) 8?) aiG'yyvr)^ Xuttt) Tfc9 koX rapa'^rj

irepl TO, et? aho^lav (pai^vofieva (^epetv tmv kukcov, ^

irapovTcov^ rj yeyovorcov, rj fjueWovTcov. In this sense

as ' fuga dedecoris ' it is used Ecclus. iv. 21 ; by

Plato, Gorg. 492 a; by Xenophon, Anah. iii. 1. 10.

In this last passage, which runs thus, (f^o/Sovjuievoi. Se

Tov oSov Kol aK0VTe<; 6/jlco<; ol ttoWoI St' alcr'^vvTjv kol

akXrjXwv KOL Kvpov avvTjKoXovOrjcrav, Xenophon im-

plies that while he and others, for more reasons

than one, disapproved the going forward with Cjtus

to assail his brother's throne, they yet were now

ashamed to draw back.

This much of truth the distinction drawn above

possesses, that aiSw? (= ' verecundia,' see Cicero,

I^ep. V. 4) is the nobler word and implies the nobler

motive : in it is implied an innate moral repugnance

^ There is the same onesidedness, though exactly on the other

side, in Cicero's definition of ' pudor,' which he makes merely pro-

spective : Pudor nietus rerum turpium, et ingenua quaedam timidi-

tas, dedecus fugiens, laudemque conseetans ; but Ovid writes,

Irruit, et nostrum vulgat clamore pudorem.

NEW TESTAMENT. 101

to the doing of the dishonourable act, which moral

repugnance scarcely or at all exists in the alaxvvrj.

Insure the man restrained only by ala'xyvT] against

the outward disgrace which he fears may accom-

panv or follow his act, and he will refrain from it

no longer. It is only, as Aristotle teaches, irepl

dSo^la? (f)avTacrla : its seat, therefore, as he goes on

to show, is not properly in the moral sense of him

that entertains it, in his consciousness of a right

which has been, or would be, violated by his act,

but only in his apprehension of other persons who

are, or might be, privy to its violation. Let this

apprehension be removed, and the alax^vv ceases;

while at'Sw? finds its motive in its own moral being,

and not in any other ; it implies reverence for the

good as good, and not merely as that to which

honour and reputation are attached. Thus it is

often connected with evXd^eia (Heb. xii. 28), the

reverence before God, before His majesty. His ho-

liness, which will induce a carefulness not to offend,

the German ' Scheu ;' so Plutarch, Cces. 14 ; Coiij.

Prcec. 47 ; Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 44 ; often also with

Seo9, as Plato, Euth. 126 c ; with evKoaiJula^ Xeno-

phon, Cyrojp. viii. 1. 33 ; with evra^la and KoafiioTT]^,

Plutarch, Cces. 4 ; with a-efivorr]^, Conj. Prcec. 26.

To sum up all, we may say that atS^? would always

restrain a good man from an unworthy act, while

ald^vvK) would sometimes restrain a bad one.

102 SYNONYMS OF THE

§ XX.

—

alB(t)<;, aco^pO(7Vvrj.

These words occur together at 1 Tim. ii. 9 ; tlie

only other places where acocj^poavvT] occurs being

Acts xxvi. 25 ; and 1 Tim. ii. 15, where atSco? and

aw(f)poavvr] are urged by the Apostle as together

constituting the truest adornment of a Christian

woman. If the distinction drawn in § 19 be cor-

rect, this one, wdiich Xenophon, {fiyrop. viii. 1. 31)

ascribes to Cyrus, between the words now under

consideration, can hardly be allowed to stand

:

hiypeu he alBo) kol aco^poavvTjv rfjSe^ &)? rov<; pLeu

alSov pbevov<i ra iv tm ^avepa> ala'^pa (f>evyovTa<;,

Tou? Se acocf) pova<; kol ra iv ru> a(^avel. On nei-

ther side is it successful, for as on the one hand the

at'Sco? does not shun merely open and manifest base-

nesses, however the ala^y^v may do this, so, on the

other side, the point of the acocppoavvrj is altogether

different from that here made, which, though true,

is yet a mere accident of it. The opposite of aKo-

\aaia (Thucydides, iii. 37), it is properly the state

of an entire command over our passions and desires,

so that they receive no further allowance than that

which the law and right reason admit and approve;

Plato, Symp. 196 c: elvau yap bpLoXoyelrai aQ)(f)po-

avvTj TO Kpareiv rjBovciyv kol iinOvpiLOiv : and in the

NEW TESTANIENT. 103

Cha/ronides he has dedicated a whole dialogue to

the investigation of the exact force of the word.

Aristotle, Hhet. i. 9 : aperr) St' rjv 7rp6<; ra? rjSova^

rod (Tco/jLaro? ouro)? exovacv, &)? 6 v6iJio<; KeXevet: cf.

Plutarch, De Curios. 14 ; De Yirt Mor. 2 ; Gryll.

: T) fiev ovv (Tco(j>poa-vv7j IBpa')(yT7)<; Ti<; icrrlv einOv-

p,i(x)V Koi raft?, dvaipovaa fxev Ta<i eireicrdKrov^ koX

7repiTTa<;, KaipM he koL /jLerpcorrjTC Koafiovaa ra? dvay-

Kala^ : and Diogenes Laertius, iii. 57. 91. IS^o single

Latin word exactly represents it. Cicero, as he

avows himself {Tusc. iii. 5 ; cf. v. 14), renders it

now by ' temj)erantia,' now by * moderatio,' now by

^modestia.' Hwcj^poavvr] was a virtue which as-

sumed more marked prominence in heathen ethics

than it does in Christian ; not because more value

was attached to it there than with us ; but partly

because it was there one of a much smaller com-

pany of virtues, each of which therefore would sin-

gly attract more attention ; but also in part because

for as many as are " led by the Spirit," this condi-

tion of self-command is taken up and transformed

into a condition yet higher still, in which a mandoes not command himself, which is well, but,

which is far better still, is commanded by God.

In the passage already referred to (1 Tim. ii. 9),

where it and al8co^ occur together, we shall best

distinguish them thus, and the distinction will be

capable of further application. If alSco^ is the

104 SYNONYMS OF THE

* sliamefastness,' ^ or pudency, which shrinks from

overpassing the limits of womanly reserve and mod-

esty, as well as from the dishonour which would

justly attach thereto, aw^poavvr) is that habitual

inner self-government, with its constant rein on all

the passions and desires, which would hinder the

temptation to this from arising, or at all events from

arising in such strength as should overbear the

checks and hindrances which alhca^ opposed to it.

^ It is a pity that 'shamefast' and 'sharaeftistness,' by which

last word our translators rendered cwcppoavvr) here, should have

been corrupted in modern use to ' shame/aci?c? ' and * sh^vaefaced-

ness.^ Tlie words are properly of the same formation as 'stead-

fast,' 'steadfastness,' 'soothfast,' ' soothfastness,' and those good

old English words, now lost to us, 'rootfast,' and ' rootfastness.'

As by ' rootfast ' our fathers understood that which was firm and

fast by its root, so by 'shamefast' in like manner, that which was

established and made fast by (an honourable) shame. To change

this into ^shamefaced' is to allow all the meaning and force of the

word to run to the surface, to leave us ethically a far inferior word.

It is very inexcusable that all modern reprints of the Authorized

Version should have given in to this corruption. So long as

merely the spelling of a word is concerned, this may very well be

allowed to fall in with modern use ; we do not want them to print

* Sonne' or 'marveile,' when every body now spells 'son* and

' marvel.' But when the true form, indeed the life, of a word is

aflfected by the alterations which it has undergone, then I cannot

but consider that subsequent editors were bound to adhere to the

first edition of 1611, which should have been considered authori-

tative and exemplary for all that followed.

KETV TESTAMEXT. 105

§ xxi.

—

avpw^ ekKvco.

These words difier, and with diflerences not the-

ologically unimportant. TTe best represent these

tJieir differences in English when we render avpeip,

' to drag,' eXKveLv, ' to draw.' In avpecv, as in our

' drag,' there lies always the notion of force, as when

Plutarch {De Lib. Ed. 8) speaks of the headlong

course of a river, irdvra avpcov koI iravra irapacpi-

pcov : and it will follow, that where persons, and not

merely things, are in question, it will involve the

notion of violence (Acts viii. 3 ; xiv. 19 ; xvii. 6).

But in €\kv6lv this notion of force or violence does

not of necessity lie. That, indeed, such is often

implied in it, is plain enough (Acts xvi. 19 ; xxi. 30

Jam. ii. 6 ; and cf. //. xi. 258 ; xxiv. 52, 417

Aristophanes, Eqxdt. 710 ; Euripides, Troad. 70

Ala^ elXK€ Kaadvhpav 13la); but not always, any

more than in our ' draw,' which we use of a mental

and moral attraction, or in the Latin Uraho,' as

witness the language of the poet, Trahit sua quem-

que voluj^tas. Thus Plato, jPol. vi. 494 e: iav

eXKTjrac Trpo? (f)L\oao(f)Lau.

Only by keeping in mind this difference which

there is between ekKveiv and avpecv, can we vindi-

cate from erroneous interpretation two doctrinally

5*

106 SYNONYMS OF THE

important passages in the Gospel of St. John. The

first is xii. 32 ;" I, if I be lifted up from the earth,

will draw all men nnto me " (iravTa^i e\/cvaco). But

how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour

draw all men unto Him? ]^ot bj force, for the

will is incapable of force, but by the divine attrac-

tions of His love. Again He declares (vi. 44)

:

" 'No man can come to Me, except the Father which

hath sent Me draw him " {eXKvay avrov). Kow as

many as feel bound to deny any ' gratia irresisti-

bilis,' which turns man into a mere machine, and

by which, nolens volens, he is dragged to God, must

at once allow that this ekKvarj can mean no more

than the potent allurements of love, the attracting

of men by the Father to the Son ; as at Jeremiah

xxxi. 3, " With loving-kindness have I drawn thee "

{eiXKvad ere), with which compare Cant. i. 3. 4. Did

we find avpeiv on either of these occasions (not that

I believe this would have been possible), the asser-

tors of a ' gratia irresistibilis '^ might then urge the

' The excellent words of Augustine on this last passage, him-

self sometimes adduced as an upholder of this, may be here quoted

{In Ev, Joh. Tract, xxvi. 4) : Nemo venit ad me, nisi quern Pater

adtraxerit. ]S"oli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et

amore. Nee timere debemus ne ab hominibus qui verba perpen-

dunt, et a rebus maxime divinis iutelligendis longe remoti sunt, in

hoc Scripturarum sanctarum evaugelico verbo forsitan reprehenda-

mur, et dicatur nobis, Quomodo voluntate, credo, si trahor? Ego

dico: Parum est voluntate, etiam voluptate traheris. Porro si

KEW TESTA^tlENT. 107

passages as leaving no room for any other meaning

but theirs ; but not as they now stand.

In agreement Avith this which has been said, in

eXKvecv is much more predominantly the sense of

a drawing to a certain point, in avpecv merely of

dragging after one ; thus Lucian {Z>e Merc. Concl.

3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and

dragged through the water, describes him as avpo-

fjuevov Kol irpo^ avd'yKTjv ayofjievov. JSTot seldom

there will lie in avpetv the notion of this dragging

being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail

upon the ground {avpfia^ avphrjv) which is forcibly

dragged along with no will of its own. A com-

j)arison of the uses of the two words at John xxi.

6, 8, 11, will be found entirely to bear out the dis-

tinction which has been here traced. . In the first

and last of these verses ekKveiv is used ; for they

both express a draiving of the net to a certain

point / by the disciples to themselves in the ship,

by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver. 8

avpeiv is emj^loyed ; for nothing is there intended

but the drcigging of the net which had been fastened

to the ship, after it through the water. Our Yer-

poetae dicere licuit, Trahit sua quemque voluptas ; non necessitas,

sed voluptas ; non obligatio, sed delectatio; quanto fortius nos

dicere debemus, tralii liominem ad Christum, qui delectatur veri

tate, delectatur beatitudine, delectatur justitia, delectatur sempi-

terna. vit^, quod totum Christus est?

108 SYNOKYMS OF THE

sion, it will be seen, has maintained the distinction

;

so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ^ ziehen

'

(=== iXfcvecv), and ' nachschlej)j)eii ' (= o'vpeiv), but

neither the Yulgate, nor Beza, which both have

forms of ' traho ' throughout.

§ xxii.—oXo/cXT^po?, TeX6to9.

These words occur together, though their order

is reversed, at Jam. i. 4,— "j)erfect and entire;"

oXoKXrjpo^; only once besides (1 Thess. v. 23), and

the substantive oXoKXrjpia, used however not in an

ethical but a physical sense, also once. Acts iii. 16;

cf. Isa. i. 6. OXoxXTjpo^ signifies first, as its deriva-

tion implies, that which retains all which was allot-

ted to it at the first, which thus is whole and entire

in all its parts, to which nothing necessary for its

completeness is wanting. Thus unhewn stones, in-

asmuch as they have lost nothing in the process of

shaping and polishing, are oXoKXrjpoc (Deut. xxvii.

6 ; 1 Mace. iv. 47) ; so too perfect weeks are e^So/xd-

Be<; oXokXtjpoi (Deut. xvi. 9) ; and in Lucian, Philojps.

8, eV 6XoKXr)p(p Bep/ian, ' in a whole skin.' At the

next step in the word's use we find it employed to

express that integrity of body, with nothing redun-

dant, nothing deficient (Lev. xxi. 17—23), which

r

NEW TESTANIENT. 109

was required of the Levitical priests as a condition

of their ministering at the altar, which was needful

also in the sacrifices they offered. In both these

senses Josephus uses it, Antt. iii. 12. 2 ; as continu-

ally Philo, with whom it is the standing word for

this integrity of the priests and of the sacrifice, to

the necessity of which he often recurs, seeing in it,

and rightly, a mystical significance, and that these

are okoKkrjpoi Ovatac oXoKkrjpw ©cm : thus De Vict.

2 ; De Yict. Off. 1 ; oXoKkripov koI iravreKw^ fico/icov

afieroxov : De Agricid. 29 ; De Cherub. 28 ; cf. Plato,

Legg. 759 c. The word in the next step of its his-

tory resembles very much the ' integer ' and ' integ-

ritas' of the Latins. Like these words, it was

transferred from bodily to mental and moral entire-

ness. The only approach to this use of 6\6K\r]po^

in the Septuagint is Wisd. xv. 3, oXoKXijpo^ ScKaco-

crvvrj ; but in an interesting and important passage

in the Dhwdrus of Plato (250 c), it is twice used to

express the perfection of man before the fall ; I

mean, of course, the fall as Plato contemplated it

;

when men were as yet oXoKkrjpoL koX aTraOeh KaKcov,

and to whom as such oXoKkrjpa (pdcr/jLaTa were

vouchsafed, as contrasted with those weak partial

glimpses of the Eternal Beauty, which is all whereof

the greater part of men ever now catch sight ; cf.

his TimcBus, 44 c. 'OXoKXrjpo^, then, is an epithet

applied to a person or a thing that is ' omnibus nu-

110 SYNONYIMS OF THE

meris absolutns;' and the iv ixT^hevl XeiTro/ievot,

which at Jam. i. 4 follows it, must be taken as the

epexegesis of the word.

TeXeto9 is a word of various applications, but

all of them referable to the reXo?, which is its

ground. They in a natural sense are reXetot, whoare adult, having reached the full limit of stature,

strength, and mental power appointed to them, whohave in these resjDCcts attained their reXo?, as dis-

tinguished from the veoc or TratSe?, young men or

boys ; so Plato, Zegg. 929 c. St. Paul, when he

employs the word in an ethical sense, does it con-

tinually with this image of full completed growth, as

contrasted with infancy and childhood, underlying

his use, the riXecoc being by him set over against

the v7]7noL iv Xpi.aro) (1 Cor. ii. 6 ; xiv. 20 ; Eph. iv.

13, 11: ; Phil. iii. 15 ; Heb. v. 14), being in fact the

Trarepe? of 1 John ii. 13, 14, as distinct from the vea-

ina/coo and iraihia. ISTor is this application of the

word to mark the religious growth and progress of

men, confined to the Scripture. The Stoics opposed

the reXeco? in philosophy to the TrpoKOTrrcov, with

which we may compare 1 Chron. xxv. 8, where the

reXeioL are set over against the fiavddvovre^. With

the heathen, those also were called TeXeuoL who had

been initiated into the mysteries ; the same thought

being at work here as in the giving of the title to

reXetov to the Lord's Supper. This was so called,

NEW TESTAMENT. Ill

because in it was the fulness of Christian privilege,

because there was nothing beyond it ; and the reXetoi,

of heathen initiation had their name in like manner,

because those mysteries into whicli they were now

introduced were the latest and crowning mysteries

of all.

It will be seen that there is a certain ambiguity

in our word ' perfect,' which, indeed, it shares with

reXeto? itself; this, namely, that they are both em-

ployed now in a relative, now in an absolute sense

;

for only out of this ambiguity could our Lord have

said, "Be ye therefore perfect (reXetot), as your

Heavenly Father is perfect (reXeco^), Matt. v. 48 ; cf

xix. 21. The Christian shall be 'perfect,' yet not

in the sense in which some of the sects preach the

doctrine of perfection, who, preaching it, either

mean nothing which they could not have expressed

by a word less liable to misunderstanding ; or mean

something which no man in this life shall attain,

and which he who affirms he has attained is deceiv-

ing himself, or others, or both. He shall be 'per-

fect,' that is, seeking by the grace of God to be fully

furnished and firmly established in the knowdedge

and practice of the things of God (Jam. iii. 2) ; not

a babe in Christ to the end, " not always employed

in the elements, and infant propositions and prac-

tices of religion, but doing noble actions, well

skilled in the deepest mysteries of faith and holi-

112 SYNONYMS OF THE

ness." ^ 111 this sense Paul claimed to be reXeto?,

even while almost in the same breath he disclaimed

the being TereXeLco/juivo^ (Phil. iii. 12, 15).

The distinction then is j)lain ; the reXew? has

reached his moral ejid, that for which he was intend-

ed ; namely, to be a man in Christ;(it is true indeed

that, having reached this, other and higher ends

open out before him, to have Christ formed in him

more and more;) the 6x6a:X?;/909 has preserved, or,

having lost, has regained, his comj^leteness. In the

oXo/cXrjpo^; no grace wliicli ought to be in a Christian

man is wanting ; in the r6X6Lo<; no grace is merely in

its weak imperfect beginnings, but all have reached

a certain ripeness and maturity. 'OXoTeX?7?, which

occurs once in the Kew Testament (1 Thess. v. 23

;

cf Plutarch, jPlac. Phil. v. 21), forms a certain con-

necting link between the two, holding on to oXokXt]-

po9 by its first half, to reXeto? by its second.

§ xxiii.

—

aT6(f>avo<;, hioBrj^ia.

The fact that our English word ^ crown ' covers

the meanings of both these words, must not lead us

^ On the sense in which 'perfection' is demanded of the Chris-

tian, there is a discussion at large by J. Taylor, Doctrine and Prac-

tice of Repentance, i. 3. 40—56, from which these words in inverted

commas are drawn.

NEW TESTAMENT. 113

to confound tliem. In German the first would often

be translated ' Kranz,' and only tlie second ' Krone.'

I indeed very mnch doubt whether anywhere in

classical literature arecjiavo^ is nsed of the kingly, or

imperial crown. It is the crown of victory in the

games, of civic worth, of military valour, of nuptial

joy, of festal gladness—woven of oak, of ivy, of

parsley, of myrtle, of olive,— or imitating in gold

these leaves or others— of flowers, as of violets or

roses (see Athenseus, xv. 9—33), but never, any more

than ' corona ' in Latin, the emblem and sign of

royalty. The BlaBrj/xa was this (Xenophon, Cyrqp.

viii. 3. 13 ; Plutarch, Be Frat. Am. 18), being pro-

perly a linen band or fillet, 'taenia' or 'fascia'

(Curtius, iii. 3), encircling the brow ; so that no lan-

guage is more common than TrepcTcOevai hidhrjfia to

signify the assumption of royal dignity (Polybius,

V. 57. 4 ; Josephus, A7itt xii. 10. 1), even as in Latin

in like manner the ' diadema ' is alone the ' insigne

regium ' (Tacitus, Aoinal. xv. 29).

A passage bringing out very clearly the distinc-

tion between the two words occurs in Plutarch, Ccbs.

61. It is the well known occasion on which Anto-

nius ofi'ers Caesar the kingly crown, which is de-

scribed as hidhr^ixa GTe<\>dv(p hdcfiVT)^ Treptfre'TrXeyiMevov :

here the oTe(l>avo<; is only the garland or laureate

Avreath, with which the true diadem was enwoven.

Indeed, according to Cicero {Phil. ii. 34), Caesar

114 SYNONYMS OF THE

was already ' coronatiis ' == iaT€cl)avci)fi6vo<; (this lie

would have been as consul), when the offer was

made. Plutarch at the same place describes the

statues of Csesar to have been, by those who would

have suggested his assumption of royalty, hiahrjiia-

cnv avaSeSe/jiivoL ^aalKlicoIs . And it is out of the

observance of this distinction that the passage in

Suetonius {Goes. 79), containing another version of

the same incident, is to be explained. One places

on his statue ' coronam lauream Candida fascia prse-

ligatam ; ' on which the tribunes of the people com-

mand to be removed, not the ' corona,' but the ' fas-

cia ; ' this being the diadem, and that in which alone

the traitorous suggestion that he should be pro-

claimed king, was contained.

How accurately the words are discriminated in

the Septuagint may be seen by comparing in the

First Book of Maccabees, in which only hidhr^fia

occurs with any frequency, the passages in which

this word is employed (such as i. 9 ; vi. 16 ; viii.

14; xi. 13, 54; xii. 39; xiii. 32), and those where

crTe^avo<; aj)pears (iv. 5T ; x. 29 ; xi. 35 ; xiii. 39 :

cf. 2 Mace. xiv. 4).

In respect of the New Testament, there can be,

of course, no doubt that whenever St. Paul speaks

of crowning, and of the crown, it is always the

crown of the conqueror, and not of the king, which

he has in his eye. The two passages, 1 Cor. ix. 24

—

NEW TESTA^IENT. 115

2G ; 2 Tim. ii. 5, place tins beyond question ; wliile

the epithet d/jLapdpTLPo<i applied to the aTe<^avo<; tt}^

B6^7]^ (1 Pet. Y. 4), leaves no doubt about St. Peter's

allusion. If this is not so directly to the Greek

games, yet still the contrast which he tacitly draws,

is one between the wreaths of heaven which never

fade, and the garlands of earth which lose their

brightness and freshness so soon. At Jam. i. 12;

Rev. ii. 10 ; iii. 11 ; iv. 4, it is more probable that a

reference is not intended to these Greek games ; the

alienation from which as idolatrous and profane was

so deep on the part of the Jews (Josephus, A7itt.

XV. 8. 1—4), aud no doubt also of the Jewish mem-

bers of the Church, that an image drawn from the

rewards of these games would have been to them

rather repulsive than attractive. Yet there also the

arejiavo^^ or the are^avo^ r?)? fa)%, is the emblem,

not of royalty, but of highest joy and gladness, of

glory and immortality.

We may feel the more confident that in these

last passages from the Apocalypse St. John did not

intend Mngly crowns, from the circumstance that on

three occasions, where beyond a doubt he does mean

such, SidSTj/jLa is the word which he employs (Rev.

xii. 3 ; xiii. 1 [cf. xvii. 9, 10, al eirra Ke(j>aXal . . .

^aaiXels eirrd elatv'] ; xix. 12). In this last verse it

is fitly said of Him who is King of kings and Lord

of lords, that " on His head were many crowns "

116 SYNONYMS OF THE

{SiaSrifiara ttoWo) ; an expression wMch, witS sill

its grandeur, we find it hard to realize, so long as

we picture to our mind's eye sucli crowns as at the

present monarchs wear, but intelligible at once

when we contemplate them as diadems, that is, nar-

row fillets bound about the brow, such as hiahrjiMara

will imply. These " many diadems " will then be

the tokens of the many royalties— of earth, of hea-

ven, and of hell (Phil. ii. 10)— which are his ; roy-

alties once usurped or assailed by the Great Hed

Dragon, the usurper of Christ's dignity and honour,

described therefore with his seven diadems as well

(xiii. 1), but now openly and for ever assumed by

Him to whom they rightfully belong;just as, to

compare earthly things with heavenly, we are told

that when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, entered Antioch

in triumph, he set two crowns {hiahrjiJiaTa) on his

head, the crown of Asia, and the crown of Egypt

(1 Mace. xi. 13).

The only place where crre^ai^o? might seem to

be used of a kingly crown is Matt, xxvii. 29, with

its parallels in the other Gospels, where the weaving

of the crown of thorns {arecpavo^ aKdv6ivo<^)^ and

placing it on the Saviour's head, is evidently a

part of that blasphemous caricature of royalty

which the Poman soldiers enact. But woven of

such materials as it was, probably of the juncus

Qnarinus. or of the lycium spinosimi, it is evident

NEW TESTAMENT. 117

that hidhrjfjia could not be applied to it; and tlie

word, therefore, which was fittest in respect of the

material whereof it was composed, takes place of

that which would have been the fittest in respect

of the purj)ose for which it was intended.

§ xxiv.

—

TrXeove^la. cpcXapyvpla.

Between these two words the same distinction

exists as between our ^ covetousness ' and * avarice,'

or as between the German ' Habsucht ' and ' Geiz.'

TLXeove^ia is the more active sin, (pcXapyvpla the

more passive : the first seeks rather to grasp what

it has not, and in this way to have more/ the second,

to retain, and, by accumulating, to multiply that

which it already has. The first, in its methods of

acquiring, will be often bold and aggressive ; even

as it may, and often will be as free in scattering and

squandering, as it was eager and unscrupulous in

getting ;' rapti largitor,' as is well imagined in the

Sir Giles Overreach of Massinger. Consistently

with this we find TrXeoveKTrj^ joined with apira^ (1

Cor. V. 10) ; irXeove^ia with jBapvTT)^ (Plutarch, Arist.

3) ; and in the plural, with KXoirai (Mark vii. 22)

;

with aSiKLac (Strabo, vii. 4. 6) ; with cf)LXovecKiac

(Plato, Zegg. iii. GTT I) ; and the sin defined by

118 SYNONYMS OF THE

Tlieocloret : 7; rod irXelovos €(f)€cr(,<i, kol 77 rcov ov irpoa-

TjKovroDv dpirajT). But, wliile it is tlius witli TrXeo-

i/ef/a, (fiLXapryupla on the other hand will be often

cautious and timid, and will not necessarily have

cast off the outward appearances of righteousness.

Thus, the Pharisees were <j)L\dpjvpoL (Luke xvi. 14)

;

this was not irreconcilable with the maintenance

of the outward shows of holiness, which the TrXeo-

ve^la would evidently have been.

Cowley, in the delightful prose which he has

mixed up with his verse, draws this distinction

strongly and well {Essay Y, Of Avarice), though

Chaucer had done the same before him in his Pe?'-

sones Tale: "There are," says Cowley, "two sorts

of avarice ; the one is but of a bastard kind, and

that is the rapacious ai)petite for gain ; not for its own

sake, but for the pleasure of refunding it immedi-

ately through all the channels of pride and luxury;

the other is the true kind, and ]_3roperly so called,

which is a restless and unsatiable desire of riches,

not for any farther end or use, but only to hoard and

preserve, and perpetually increase them. The cov-

etous man of the first kind is like a greedy ostrich,

which devours any metal, but it is with an intent

to feed upon it, and, in effect, it makes a shift to

digest and excern it. The second is like the foolish

chough, which loves to steal money only to hide it."

There is another and more important point of

NEW TESTAMENT. 110

view, from which irXeove^la may be regarded as the

wider, larger term, the genus, of which cl)iXapyvpLa

is the species ; this last being the love of money,

while TrXeove^ia is the drawing and snatching to

himself, on the sinner's part, of the creature in every

form and kind, as it lies out of and beyond himself;

the ' indigentia ' of Cicero : ( Indigentia est libido

inexplebilis : Tiisc. iv. 9. 21). For this distinction

between the words compare Augustine, Enarr. in

Ps. cxviii. 35, 36 ; and Bengel's j)rofound explana-

tion of the fact, that, in the enumeration of sins, St.

Paul so often unites irXeove^ia with sins of the flesh

;

as at 1 Cor. v. 11 ; Eph. v. 3, 5 ; Col. iii. 5 : Solet

autem jungere cum impuritate irXeove^iav, namhomo extra Deum quoerit pabulum in creatura ma-

teriali, vel per voluptatem, vel -pev avaritiam ; bo-

num alienum ad se redigit. But, expressing much,

Bengel has not expressed all. The connexion be-

tween these two provinces of sin is deeper, is more

intimate still ; and this is witnessed in the fact, that

not merely is irXeove^ia, as covetousness, joined to

sins of impurity, but the word is sometimes in

Scripture, continually by the Greek Fathers (see

Suicer, Thes. s. v.), employed to designate these sins

themselves ; even as the root out of which they

alike grow, namely, the fierce and ever fiercer long-

ing of the creature which has turned from God, to

fill itself with the inferior objects of sense, is one

120 SYNONYMS OF THE

and the same. Regarded thus, irXeove^la has a

much wider and deeper sense than (fiCkapyvpla.

Take the sublime commentary on the word which

Plato {Gorg. 493) supplies, where he likens the de-

sire of man to the sieve or pierced vessel of the

Danaids, which they were ever filling, but might

never fill ; ^ and it is not too much to say, that the

whole longing of the creature, as it has itself aban-

doned God, and by a just retribution is abandoned

by Him, to stay its hunger with the swines' husks,

instead of the children's bread which it has left, is

contained in this word.

§ XXV. jBoGKCO, TTOLfJLaLVQ).

While both these words are often employed in

a figurative and spiritual sense in the Old Testa-

ment, as at 1 Chron. xii. 16 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 3 ; Ps.

Ixxvii. 72 ; Jer. xxiii. 2 ; and TrotfiaLvecv often in the

'New ; the only occasions in the latter, where ^6<tk6lv

* It ia evident that tlie same compai'ison had occurred to Shak-

speare

:

" The cloyed will,

That satiate yet unsatisfied desire,

That tub both fill'd and running."

Ot/mbeline, Act L Sc. Y.

NEW testa:sient. 121

is BO used, are Joliii xxi. 15, 17. There our Lord,

giving to St. Peter liis thrice repeated commission

to feed liis " lambs " (ver. 15), his " sheep " (ver. 16),

and again his ^- sheep" (ver. 17), uses, on the fii'st

occasion, jSoo-Ke, on tlie second, Trolfjuaive, and retm*ns

again to /36ak6 on the third. This return, on the

third and Last repetition of the charge, to the word

employed on the first, has been a strong argument

with some for the indifierence of the w^ords. They

have nrged, and with a certain show of reason, that

Christ conld not have h.2.6. progressive aspects of the

pastoral work in His intention, nor have purposed

to indicate them here, else He would not have come

back in the end to /36(jA:e, the same word with which

He began. Yet I cannot believe the variation of

the words to have been without a motive, any more

than the changes, in the same verses, from ajairav

to (J}lX€cv, from apvla to irpo/SaTa. It is true that

our Version, rendering ^oaKe and iroiiialve alike by" Feed," has not attempted to reproduce the varia-

tion, any more than the Yulgate, which, on each

occasion, has ' Pasce ;' nor do I j^erceive any re-

sources of language by which either the Latin

Yersion or our own could have hel23ed themselves

here. It might be more possible in German, by

aid of ' weiden ' (= (BoaKeLv), and ' hiiten ' (= iroi-

fjbaiveiv) ; De Wette, liowevcr, has ' weiden ' through-

out. »

6

122 SYNONYMS OF THE

The distinction, altliongli thus not capable of

being easily reproduced in all languages, is veiy far

from fanciful, is indeed a most real one. ^ocr/cw,

the same word as the Latin ' pasco,' is simply ' to

feed :' but Trot/nalpco involves much more ; the whole

office of the shepherd, the entire leading, guiding,

guarding, folding of the flock, as well as the finding

of nourishment for it ; thus Lampe : Hoc symbolum

totum regimen ecclesiasticum comprehendit ; and

Bengel : ^oo-Keiv est pars 7ov Troi/nalveiv. Out of a

sense continually felt, of a shadowing forth in the

shepherd's work of the highest ministries of menfor the weal of their fellows, and of the peculiar fit-

ness which this image has to set forth the same, it

has been often transferred to their office, who are,

or should be, the faithful guides and guardians of

the people committed to their charge. Kings, in

Homer, are iroifjueve^; XaOiv : cf. 2 Sam. v. 2 ; vii. Y.

ISTay more, in Scripture God Himself is a Shepherd

(Isa. xl. 11) ; and David can use no words which

shall so well express his sense of the Divine protec-

tion as these : Kvpto^ iroLfiaLvei fie (Ps. xxiii. 1)

;

nor does the Lord take anywhere a higher title than

6 TTOLfiriv 6 KaX6<i (John x. 11 ; cf. 1 Pet. v. 4, o ap-

XC'rrotfj.rjv : Heb. xiii. 20, 6 fieya<; Troifxrjv rcov TrpofBd-

Tcov; nor give a higher than that implied in this

word to his ministers. Compare the sublime pas-

sage in Philo, De Agrioul. 12, beginning: oi/to)

KEW TESTAilEAT. 128

jxevTOL TO iroLfiaiveiV iarlv dyadbv, ware ov /Sa-

(jiXevcn fxovov koX ao(f)OL<; apSpdac, Koi "^v^al^; re-

\eia KeKaOapjJLevaLS-j dXka KaX Oew tw TravrjjejJLOVL

hiKalw^ dvarlOeTai '. and also the three sections pre-

ceding.

Still, it may be asked, if iroLfxalveLv be thus the

higher Trord, and if irolfjiaLve was therefore superadd-

ed upon /36aK6, because it was so, and implied so

many further ministries of care and tendance, whydoes it not aj^pear in the last, which must be also

the most solemn, commission given by the Lord to

Peter ? how are we to account, if this be true, for

his returning to jSoaxe again ? I cannot doubt that

in Stanley's Sermons and Essays on the Aijostolical

Age, p. 138, the right answer is given. The lesson,

in fact, which we learn from this His coming back

to the ^oaKe with which Pie had begun, is a most

important one, and one which the Church, and all

that bear rule in the Church, have need diligently

to lay to heart ; this namely, that whatever else of

discij^line and rule may be superadded thereto, still,

the feeding of the flock, the finding for them of

spiritual nourishment, is the first and last ; nothing

else Avill supply the room of this, nor may be allow-

ed to put this out of its foremost and most important

place. How often, in a false ecclesiastical system,

the preaching of the word loses its pre-eminence;

the I36a/c€iv falls into the background, is swallowed

124 SYKONYMS OF THE

up in the Trot/jiaLveLv, which presently becomes no

true Troifiaiveiv^ because it is not a /SoaKSLv as well,

but such a ' shepherding ' rather as God's Word, by

the prophet Ezeldel, has denounced (xxxiv. 2, 3, 8,

10; cf. Zech. xiii. 15—17; Matt, xxiii.).

§ xxvi.— ffyXo?, (f)96vo<;.

These words are often joined together ; they are

so by St. Paul, Gal. v. 20, 21 ; by Clemens Koma-

Jius, 1 ^p. ad Cor. 3, 4, 5 ; and by classical writers

as well ; as, for instance, by Plato, Phil. 4:7 e ; Legcj.

679 G ; Menex. 212 a. Still, there are differences

between them ; and this first, that f7}Xo9 is a fxiaov,

being used sometimes in a good (as John ii. 17;

Kom. x. 2 ; 2 Cor. ix. 2), sometimes, and in Scripture

oftener, in an evil sense (as Acts v. 17; Pom. xiii.

13 ; Gal. v. 20 ; Jam. iii. 14) ; while ^66vo<; is not

capable of a good, but is used always and only in

an evil signification. When ^r;Xo9 is taken in good

part, it signifies the honourable emulation, with the

consequent imitation, of that w^hich presents itself

to the mind as excellent; ^77X09 twv dplarcov, Lucian,

Adv. Indoct. 17 ;?7}\o9 Kai ixifxrja-i^^ Herodian, ii. 4

;

^rfKayrr]^ koX fjiLfjLr]Tr)<;, vi. 8. It is the Latin * semula-

tiOj' in vv^hich nothing of envy is of necessity in-

NEW TESTx\MEXT. 125

eluded, liowever it is possible tliat sncli may find

place; the German ^^N'acbeiferung,' as distinguished

from ' Eifersucht.' The verb ^ semulor,' as is well

known, finely expresses the distinction of worthy

and unworthy emulation, governing an accusative

in cases where the first, a dative where the second,

is intended.

By Aristotle {Rhet. ii. 11) JtJXo? is employed ex-

clusively in this nobler sense, to signify the active

emulation which grieves, not that another has the

good, but that itself has it not; and which, not

stopping here, seeks to make the wanting its own,

and in this respect is contrasted by him with envy

:

'iaTi t,r\\o<^ XvTTT] Tt? eirl (paivo/ievy Trapovaia aya6a)V

ivTi/jicov, .... ov^ ore aXXw, aXX on ov-^i kul avrS

icTTL' Bio KOl i7rLeLK€<i iaTLV 6 ^rj\o<^^ KoX eTTieCKOJV'

TO Be (pdovelvj (pavXop, koX ^av\(ov. Cf. Jerome,

Exp. in Gal. V. 20 : f?}Xo9 et in bonam partem accipi

potest, quum quis nititur ea quo3 bona sunt semulari.

Invidia vero aliena felicitate torquetur ; and again.

In Gal. iv. 17 : ^mulantur bene, qui cum videant

in aliquibus esse gratias, dona, virtutes, ipsi tales

esse desiderant. (Ecumenius : earu ^rj\o<; Kivr]aL<^

a/tu^?}? ivdovcn(oB7j<^ eiTi rt, fxerd tcvo<; d(f}o/jiotcoa€0)<;

Tov 7r/309 o rj aTTOuBrj iarc.

But it is only too easy for this zeal and honour-

able rivalry to degenerate into a meaner jDassion, a

fact which is strikingly attested in the Latin word

126 SYNONYMS OF THE

' simultaSj' connected, as Doderlein {jMt. Synon.

vol. iii. p. 72) shows, not with ' siraulare,' but with

'simul;' those who together aim at the same object

being in danger not merely of being competitors,

bnt enemies; just as aficWa^ wliich however has

kept its more honourable use (Plutarch, Anhn. an

COT]), ajpjp. pej. 3), is connected with aixa. These

degeneracies which wait so near upon emulation,

may assume two shapes ; either that of a desire to

make war upon the good which it beholds in

another, and thus to trouble that good, and make it

less ; therefore we find fr}\o9 and ept? continually

joined together (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Gal.

V. 20 ; Clem. Eom. 1 JEj). 3, 6) ; or, where there is

not vigour and energy enough to attempt the mctking

of it less, there may be at least the wishing of it

less. And here is the point of contact which \^riKo<^

has with <^Qovo^ : thus Plato, Menex. 242 a : irpcorov

fx6v f^Xo?, cLTTo ^rjXov Be (j)d6vo^ '. tlic lattcr being

essentially passive, as the former is active and ener-

gic. We do not find (f)66vo^ in the comprehensive

catalogue of sins at ]\Iark vii. 21, 22 ; its place be-

ing there supplied by a circumlocution, 6(j)6aX/j,6(;

irovr)p6^^ but one putting itself in connexion with

the Latin ' invidia,' which is derived, as Cicero ob-

serves, ' a nimis intuendo fortunam alterius;

' cf.

Matt. XX. 15 ; and 1 Sam. xviii. 9 :" Saul eyed^''

i. e. envied " David." Odovos is the meaner sin,

NEW TESTAMENT. 127

being merely displeasure at anotlier's goods * (^vittj

iir aX\oTploi<; ayaOol^^ as tlie Stoics defined it,

Diogenes Laertius, vii. Q^. Ill), with the desire

that these may be less ; and this, quite apart from

any hope that thereby its own will be more (Aris-

totle, Ichet. ii. 10). He that feels it, does not feel

with it any impulse or longing to raise himself to

the level of him whom he envies, but only to de-

press the other to his own." When the victories of

Miltiades would not suffer the youthful Themistocles

to sleep (Plutarch, Them. 3), here was frjXo?, that

is, in its nobler form, for it was such as prompted

him to worthy actions, and would not let him rest

till he had set a Salamis of his own against the Ala-

rathon of his great predecessor. But it was cpOovog

which made that Athenian citizen to be weary of

liearing Aristides evermore styled " The Just " (Plu-

tarch, Arist, 7) ; and this his (j)66vo^ contained no

impulses moving him to strive for himself after the

justice which he envied in another. See on this

^ Augustine's definition of <pQ6vos {Exp. in Gal. v. 21) is not

quite satisfactory: Invidia vero dolor animi est, cum indignus vi-

detur aliquis assequi etiam quod non appetebas. This would

rather be vefietri^ and vefieaav in the ethical terminology of Aris-

totle (Ethic. Nic. ii. 7. 15; PJiet. 2. 9).

^ On the likenesses and differences between ix7(tos and (p96vo9,

see Plutarch's graceful little essay, full of subtle analysis of the

human heart, De Invidid et Odio.

128 SYNONY]MS OF THE

subject further tlie beautiful remarks of Plutarch,

Be Prof. Virt 14.

§ xxvii.

—

^(orj, ^LO^.

The Latin language and the English are alike

poorer than the Greek, in having but one word, the

Latin ' vita,' the English ' life,' to express these two

Greek. There would, indeed, be no comparative

poverty here, if ^wt] and /5i09 were merely dupli-

cates ; but, covering as they do very different spaces

of meaning, it is certain that we, having but one

word for them both, mnst use this one in very di-

verse senses ; it is possible that by this equivocation

we may, without being aware of it, conceal very

real and important differences from ourselves ; for,

indeed, there is nothing so potent to do this as the

equivocal use of a word.

The true antithesis of ^cotj is Odvaro^ (Eom. viii.

88 ; 2 Cor. v. 4 ; cf. Jer. viii. 3 ; Sirac. xxx. 17

;

Plato, Zegff. xii. 944 c), as of the verb ^rjv, airoOvrj^

(TKeiv (Matt. XX. 38 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Eev. i. 18 ; cf II.

xxiii. 70 ; Herodotus, i. 31 ; Plato, Plicedo^ 71 d

:

ovK evavTioy cj)rj^ to) ^yv to reOvdvai ehat); fw/j, in

fact, being very nearly connected with dco, drun^ to

breathe the breath of life, which is the necessary

NEW TESTAMENT. 129

condition of living, and, as sucli, is involved in like

manner in irvevfia and '^v)(r).

But, while fw^J is thus life intensive (' vita qna

vivimus ' ), /3/o? is life extensive (' vita quam vivi-

nins ' ), the period or duration of life ; and then,

in a secondary sense, the means by which that life

is sustained ; and thirdly, the manner in which that

life is spent. Examples of the nse of ^/o? in all

these senses the Xew Testament supplies. Thus it

is used as—a, the j)eriod or duration of life ; 1 Pet. iv. 3,

'X^povo^ rov plov : cf. Job. x. 20, /S/o? rov xpovov : PlU'

tarch, De JLih. Ed. 17 : o-Tiyixi] y^povov 7rd<; 6 ^io<; iari.

13, the means of life, or ' living,' E Y. ; Mark

xii. 44 ; Luke viii. 43 ; xv. 12 ; 1 John iii. 17, rov

Plov rod KocTfjLov : cf. Plato, Gorg. 486 d; Legg. 936

c ; Aristotle, Hist. Anim. ix. 23. 2 ; and often, but

not always, these means of life, with an under sense

of largeness and abundance.

7', the manner of life ; 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; so Plato,

Pol. 344 e : ^iov hia'yooyr) : and Plutarch very nobly

{De Is. et Os. 1) ; rov Se ytvooaKeLV ra oura, Kal cppO'

velv d(f)atpe6ivTo<;j ov /Slov dWd ')(^p6vov [o2/xat] elvai

r')]v dOavaalav '. and De Lib. Ed. 7 : TeTa<yiJievo<^ /3io<;

:

Josephus, A^itt. V. 10. 1 ; with which compare Au-

gustine {De Trin. xii. 11) : Cujus vit^e sit quisque

;

id est, qiLomodo agat hmc tenvporalia, quam vitam

Grssci non i^w-qv sed jBiov vocant.

130 SYNONYMS OF THE

From this last use of yS/o?, as the manner of life,

there is often an ethical sense inhering in it, which,

in classical Greek at least, fco?; does not possess.

Thus Aristotle, according to Ammonius, could draw

the following distinction between the words;

ySio?

iarl XojiKrj ^(dyj : Ammonius himself affirming /3<o9

to be never, except incorrectly, applied to the exist-

ence of plants or animals, but only to the lives of

men. ' I know not how he can reconcile this state-

ment with such passages as these from Aristotle,

Hist. Anim. i. 1. 15 ; ix. 8. 1 ; unless, indeed, he

would include him in his censure. Still, the dis-

tinction which he is here somewhat too absolutely

asserting, must be acknowledged as a real one ; it

displays itself with great clearness in our words

' zoology ' and ' biography.' We speak, on the one

hand, of '^6>6»logy,' for animals have the vital prin-

ciple ; they live, as well as men ; and they arc

capable of being classed and described in relation

to the different workings of this natural life of

theirs; but, on the other hand, we speak of * lio-

graphy ;

' for men not merely live, but they lead

lives, lives in which there is that moral distinction

between one and another which may make them

well worthy to be recorded. Out of this it will fol-

^ See on this point, and generally on these two synon^'iiis, Vo-

mel, Synon. Worterhuch, p. 168 sq.

KEW TESTA^IEXT. 131

low, tliat, wliile Odvaro^ and fo)?) constitute, as was

observed above, the true antithesis, vet tliej do so

only so long as both are jphysicaUy contemplated.

So soon as a moral idea is introduced, the antithesis

is not between Odvaro^ and fo)?/, but Odvarofi and

/S/09 : thus Xenophon {Resjj. Laced. 9. 1) : rov Ka-

Xbv Odvarov dvrl rod ala')(^pov ^iov. The two great

chapters with which the Gorgias of Plato concludes

(82, S3), are alone sufficient to bring plainly before

tlie consciousness the full distinction between the

words themselves, as also between those derived

from them.

But this being the case, (3m. and not fo)?;, being

thus shown to be the ethical word in classical anti-

quity, a thoughtful reader of Scripture might very

well inquire with something of ^^erplexity, how it

is to be explained that there all is reversed— fwr;

being certainly in it the nobler word, belonging to

the innermost circle of those terms whereby are

expressed the highest gifts of God to his creatures

;

so that, while /5/c9 has there no such noble use, but

rather the contrary— for we find it in such associa-

tions as these, i)hovoX rod (Biov (Luke viii. 14), irpay-

fjLarelai rov ^lov (2 Tim. ii. 4), dXa^ovela rov ^iov

(1 John ii. 16)— fo)?}, on the other hand, is continu-

ally used in the very noblest connexion ; aT£(f)avo<;

rri^ fo)?;? (Eev. ii. 10), I3l/3\o<; t/}? fo)?;? (iii. 5), fo)^

Kol eva-ejSeia (2 Pet. 1. 3), ^coy koi cKpOapcria (2 Tim.

132 SYNOXYMS OF THE

i. 10), ^0)7} Tov Qeov (Epli. iv. 18), fo)?) alcopio^ (Matt.

xix. 16) ; ' or it may be simply fo)?} (Matt. vii. li,

and often), to express the highest blessedness of the

creature.

A little reflection will siij^ply the answer. Re-

vealed religion, and it alone, puts death and sin iii

closest connexion, declares them the necessary cor-

relatives one of the other (Gen. i.— iii. ; Rom. v. 12),

and, as an involved consequence, in like manner,

life and holiness. It alone j^roclaims that, wherever

there is death, it is there because sin was there first

;

wherever there is no death, that is, life, it is there

because sin has never been there, or, having been

once, is now cast out and expelled. In revealed

religion, which thus makes death to have come into

the world through sin, and only through sin, life is

the correlative of holiness. Whatever truly lives,

does so because sin has never found place in it, or,

having found, has been expelled from it. So soon

as ever this is felt and understood, ^cotj at once as-

sumes the profoundest moral significance ; it be-

comes the fittest expression for the very highest

blessedness. Of that whereof you predicate abso-

lute fa)?7, you predicate of the same absolute holi-

ness. Christ afiirming of Himself, iyco elfic r) ^mtj,

^ Zo))) aidn/ios occurs once in the Septuagint (Dan. xii. 2 ; cf. ^w^

aiuvaos, 2 Mace. vii. 36), and in Plutarch, Be Jsid. et Os. X.

NEW TESTAilEXT. 133

implicitly affirmed of Himself tliat He was absolute

lioliness ; and in the creatm-e, in like manner, that

only lives, or triumphs over death, death at once

physical and spiritual, which has first triumphed

over sin. Xo wonder, then, that Scripture should

know of no higher word than fwrj to set forth either

the blessedness of God, or the blessedness of the

creature in communion with God.

From what has been said it will at once be per-

ceived how erroneous is that exposition of Eph. iv.

18, which understands a7n)XKoTpi(oixevoL t?)? fo)?}?

rov 0eo£), a& " alienated from a divine life," or, from

a life lived according to the will and commandments

of God (remoti a vita ilia qu83 secundum Deum est:

Grotius), f&}7; having never, certainly never with

St. Paul, this signification. The fact of such aliena-

tion was only too true ; but it is not what the Apos-

tle is affirming. Rather he is there describing the

miserable condition of the heathen, as of men es-

tranged from God, the one fountain of life {jrapa

Sol TTTjyr) fo)?}?, Ps. XXXV. 10) ; as not having life,

because separated from Him who alone absolutely

lives (John v. 26), and in connexion with whomalone any creature has life. Gal. v. 22 is another

passage, which we shall never rightly understand,

which will always seem to contain a tautology,

imtil we give to ^coyj (and to the verb ^rjv as well),

the force which has been claimed for it here.

134: SYNONYMS OF THE

§ xxviii.

—

Kvpio<;, SeaTrorr)^.

The distinction which the later Greek gram-

marians sought to trace between these words was

this ; a man would be BeaTrorrj^;, as resj)ects his

slaves (Plato, Leggf. 756 e), and therefore oUoBeairo-

T77?5 but Kvpio^ in respect of his wife and children,

who, in speaking either to him or of him, would

use this title of honour ;" as Sara obeyed Abraham,

calling him lord'''' (icvpiov avrov KoXovaa, 1 Pet.

iii. 6 ; cf. 1 Sam. i. 8 ; and Plutarch, De Virt. Mill.

s. vv. MifCKa KoX MeyicTTco). There is a certain truth

in this distinction. Undoubtedly there does lie in

KvpLo^ the sense of an authority owning limitations,

— moral limitations it may be— and the w^ord im-

plies that the user will not exclude, in its use, their

good over whom it is exercised ; while in Seo-TroT?;?

is implied a more unrestricted power and absolute

domination, confessing no such limitations or re-

straints. He who addresses another as SeaTrora, puts

a far greater emphasis of submission into his speech

than if he had addressed him as Kvpce. It was out

of a feeling of this that the free Greeks refused this

title of S€a7r6T7]<; to any but the gods (Euripides,

JTippol. 88 : ava^, deov^ jap S6a7T6Ta<; KoXetv ^(^peotiv);

and the sense of this distinction of theirs we have

NEW testa:m:e:nt. 135

retained in our nse of ' desjDOt,' ' despotic,' ' despot-

ism,' as set over against our use of 'lord,' ' lordship,'

and the like ; the ' despot ' is one who exercises not

only dominion, but domination.

Still, there were influences at work, whose ten-

dency was to break down any such distinction as

this. Slavery, however legalized, is so abhorrent to

men's inborn sense of right, that they seek to miti-

gate, in word at least, if not in fact, the atrocity of

it ; and thus, as no southern Planter at the present

day willingly speaks of his " slaves," but prefers

some other term, so in antiquity, as far as any gen-

tler or more humane view of slavery obtained, and

it was not merely contemplated in the aspect of one

man's imlimited power over another, the antithesis

of heaiTOTT]^ and hovXo^ would continually give place

to that of KvpLo^ and BovXo^. The harsher antago-

nism would still survive, but the milder would j^re-

vail side by side with it. So practically we find it

;

one language is used as freely as the other ; and

often in the same sentence both terms are em^^loyed

(Philo, Quod Omn. Froh. Lih. 6). We need not

look further than to the writings of St. Paul, to see

how little, in popular speech, the distinction of the

Greek synonymists was observed, blasters are now

KvpLOi (Eph. vi. 9 ; Col. iv. 1), and now Beairorai,

(1 Tim. vi. 1, 2 ; Tit. ii. 9 ; cf. 1 Pet. ii. IS), with

him.

136 SYNONYMS OF THE

But, while all experience shows how little sinful

man can be trusted with absolute unrestricted power

over his fellow, how certain he is to abuse it—

a

moral fact attested in our use of ' despot ' as equiv-

alent with ' tyrant,' as well as in the history of the

word 'tyrant' itself— it can only be a blessedness

for man to think of God as the absolute Lord, Ruler,

and Disposer of his life ; since with Him power is

never disconnected from wisdom and from love:

and, as w^e saw that the Greeks, not without a cer-

tain sense of this, were well pleased to style the

gods heairorai, however they might refuse this title

to any other ; so, within the limits of Revelation,

we find Seo-TTOT?;?, no less than Kvpco^, aj^plied to the

true God. In the OM Testament, ' Adonai ' is occa-

sionall}^ rendered by the two words joined together;

as at Gen. xv. 2, 8 ; Jer. i. 6 ; iv. 10. l^o doubt

BeaTTorr}^ realized to their minds who used it, even

more than Kvptoi;, the sense of God's absolute dis-

posal of His creatures. His autocratic power ; and

that wdien He worked, none could let Him. That

it did so present itself to Greek ears is plain from

a passage in Philo {Qids Rer. Div. Hoer. 6), where

he finds an evidence of Abraham's evXa/Seia, of his

tempering, on one great occasion, boldness with

reverence and godly fear, in the fact that in his ap-

proaches to God he leaves the more usual Kvpte, and

instead of it adopts the SeaTrora, in which there was

NEW TESTAMENT. 137

implied a more entire prostration of self, an ampler

recognition of the omnipotence of God. The pas-

sages in the Isew Testament where God is styled

SeaTTOTTj^ are these which follow : Luke ii. 29 ; Acts

iv. 24:; Eev. vi. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 5. In the

two last it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that

the title is ascribed. Erasmus, indeed, with that

latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely

conscious to himself, denies that in the words of

Jude heairoTrjv is to be referred to Christ;giving

only Kvpiov to Him, and BeaTrori^v to the Father.

The fact that in the Greek text, as he read it, ©eov

followed and was joined to SeaTrorrjv, no doubt really

lay at the root of his reluctance to ascribe the title

of SeaTTorrj^ to Christ. It was with him not a philo-

logical, but a theological difficulty, however he

may have sought to persuade himself otherwise.

§ xxix.

—

aXa^coVj vTrepijcpavo^y v/SpLart]'^.

These words, which occur all three of them to-

gether at Eom. i. 30, and the first two at 2 Tim. iii.

2, offer an interesting subject for synonymous dis-

crimination. We shall find them, I think, not to

speak of other differences, constituting a regular

sequence in this respect, that the aXa^cov is boastful

138 STNOXYMS OF THE

in words^ the v7Tepi](^avo<; proud in thoughts^ the

v/SpLo-TT]^ insolent and injurious in acts.

And first, as respects aXa^cov. This word occurs

in the ISTew Testament only at the two places al-

ready referred to ; dXa^oveia also twice, Jam. iv. 16;

1 John ii. 16. Derived from dXr], ' a wandering

about,' it was applied first to vagabond mounte-

banks, conjurers, and exorcists (Acts xix. 13 ; 1 Tim.

V. 13), who were full of empty and boastful profes-

sions of feats which they could accomplish ; being

from them transferred to any braggart or boaster,

vaunting himself to be in possession of skill, or

knowledge, or courage, or virtue, or riches, or what-

ever else it might be, which had no existence in

fact. Thus Plato defines aXa^oveia to be eft? irpoa-

iroirjTLfcr) aya6a)v firj v'7Tap')(ovT(ov : and Xenoplion

{Cyrojy. ii. 2. 12) describes the dXa^cov thus : 6 fiev

rydp uXa^cbv e/zotye S^o/cel ovofia Keiadai eVl roL<; irpoa-

7roLov/uievot<; Kal irXoucncorepoL'; elvai ij eiac, Kai

dvSp6LOT6poL<;, Kol TTOLijcreLV, a fir) iKavol elat^ vttlo--

')(vovfjLevoL<; * /cal ravra, (^avepol^ yiyvopukvoi^^ on rov

Xa^elv Ti €v€Ka Kal Kephdvat iroLovatv : and Aris-

totle {Ethic. JS'ic. iv. Y. 2) : hoKet Sr) 6 /mev dXa^cov

iTpoaTroi'r)TiKO<i tojv ivSo^oov elvai, Kal jxi] viTap-)(0VT(ov,

Kal fiet^ovcov rj V7rdp')(ei.

It is not an accident, but of the essence of the

dXa^oiv, that in his boastings he overpasses the limits

of the truth (Wisd. ii. 16,) as appears plainly from

NEW TESTA^SIENT. 139

tliat whole passage in Aristotle, who nowhere de-

scribes him as merely making unseemly display of

things which he actually possesses, but as vaunting

of tliose which he does not possess ; cf. Rliet. ii. 6

:

TO TCL aWoTpia avrov (pdaKeif, aXatpvela^ orjixelov :

and Xenophon, Memor. i. 7. Thus, too, Plato {Pol.

5G0 &) joins yjrevBeU koL a\a^6ve<; \6yoi ; and we have

a lively description of the aXatcov in the Characters

(23) of Theophrastus ; and still better, of the shifts

and evasions to which he has recourse, in the work,

Ad Hcrenn. iv. 50, 51. While, therefore, ' braggart

'

or ' boaster ' fairly represents a\afc6i/, ^ ostentation '

does not well give back cikaCpvda^ seeing that a mancan only be ostentatious in that which he really has

to show ; we have, in fact, no word which renders

it at all so adequately as the German ' Prahlerei.'

Thus, Falstaff and Parolles are both excellent,

though infinitely diverse, examples of the aXa'Cfliv :

while, on the contrary, Marlowe's Tamburlaine,

despite of all the big vaunting words which he ut-

ters, is no such, inasmuch as there are fearful reali-

ties of power with which these his ^eyaX?;? y\coaari<;

KofjbTToi are sustained and borne out. This dealing

in braggadocia is a vice sometimes ascribed to

whole nations ; thus, an efMcpvro^ aka'Cpveia was

charged on the iEtolians of old, and, in modern

times, on the Gascons, who out of this have given

us the word 'gasconade.' The Yulgate, which

140 SYNONYMS OF THE

translates aXa^ove^;, ' elati,' and which the Rhemisli

follows, ' hanglity,' has not seized the middle point

of the word as successfully as Beza, who has ren-

dered it ' gloriosi.'

'

A distinction has been sometimes drawn be-

tween the aka^oiv and the irepirepo^ [77 aydiTr] ov irep-

mrepeverat, 1 Cor. xiii. 4], that the lirst vaunts of

tilings which he does not possess, the second, of

things which,— however little this his boasting and

bravery about them may become him,— he actually

has. The distinction, however, is not one that can

be maintained (Polybius, xxxii. 6. 6 ; xl. 6. 2) ; both

are liars alike.

But this habitual boasting of one's own, will

hardly fail to be accompanied with a contempt for

that of others. If it did not find, it would rapidly

generate, such a feeling; and thus aXa^ovela is

nearly allied to vTrepo-^jrla : we find them not seldom

used as almost convertible terms ; thus see Philo,

De Carit. 22—24. But from vTrepo-yfria to V7rep7)j)avla

the step is very near ; and thus we need not wonder

•

^ "We formerly used 'glorious' in this sense. Thus, in N'orth's

Plutarch, '^. \%2> : "Some took this for a glorious brag; others

thought he [Alcibiades] was like enough to have done it." And

Milton {The Reasoii of Church Governmeyit, i. 5): "He [Ansclm]

little dreamt then that the weeding hook of Reformation would,

after two ages, pluck up his glorious poppy [prelacy] from insult-

ing over the good corn [presbytery]."

NEW TESTAIMENT. 141

to meet vTT€pi](l)avo<=; joined with dXa^cov. This word

occurs three times, besides the two occasions noted

already ; at Luke i. 51 ; Jam. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 5;

vTreprjcpavia once, Mark vii. 22. A picturesque

image serves for its basis, being, of course, derived

from virep, and (paLvojuac, one who shoivs himself

above his fellows, exactly as the Latin ' superbus ' is

from 'super;' as our 'stilts' is connected with

' Stolz,' and with ' stout ' in its earlier sense of

* proud,' or ' lifted up.' Deyling, Ohss. Sac. vol. v.

p. 219 : Qu^ vox proj^rie notat hominem capite su-

per alios eminentem, ita ut quemadmodum Saul,

prie ceteris, sit conspicuus, 1 Sam. ix. 2. Figurate

est is qui ubique eminere, et aliis pr?eferri cupit.

A man can be actually dXa^cov only when he is

in company with his fellow men ; but the seat of

the vTreprj^avla is the mind. He that is sick of this

sin, compares himself secretly toith others, and lifts

himself ahove others, in honour preferring himself.

His sin, as Theophrastus {Cliaract. 31) describes it,

is the KaTacf)p6v7)aL<; ti<; ttXi]!/ avrov tmv aWwv. His

conduct to others is not of the essence of his sin, it

is only the consequence. His ' arrogance,' as we say,

his claiming to himself of honour and observance,

his indignation, and, it may be, his cruelty and re-

venge, if these are withheld, are only the result of

this false estimate of himself. In this way virept)-

(bai'OL KoX ^apeh (Plutarch, Qu. Rom. 63) are joined

142 SYNONYMS OF THE

together. In the viTepri^avo<; we have tne perversion

of a much nobler character than in the aXa^cov, the

melancholic, as the aXa^cov is the sanguine, the

v/Spiari]^ the choleric, temperament ; but because

nobler, therefore one which, if it falls, falls more

deeply, sins more fearfully. He is one, in the

striking language of Scripture, " whose heart is lift-

ed np," vyjr7]\o/cdpSi,o<; (Prov. xvi. 5) ; he is one of

those ra vy^rrfka (ppovovvre^ (Rom. xii. 16), as opposed

to the raireivol rf] KapSta ; and this lifting up of his

heart may be not merely against man, but against

God ; he may assail the very prerogatives of Deity

itself (1 Mace. i. 21, 21 ; Wisd. xiv. 6 : vTreprjcpavoc

yiydvT6^). Therefore are we thrice told, in the very

same words, that " God resisteth the proud " {vTrepr}-

(pdvoL^ avTcrdaa-eTat : Jam. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 5 ; Prov.

iii. 34) ; sets Himself in battle array against them,

as they against Him.

'We have now to sj^eak of vfipLaTt]<i, which, by

its derivation from v^pt^, (which is, again, from virep,

as we should say, ' uppishness,' ) stands in a certain

etymological relation with vTreprjcbavo^ (see Donald-

son, JVeio Oratylus^ p^D. 517—519). The word occurs

only twice ; Rom. i. 30, where we have translated

it, ' despiteful ;

' and 1 Tim. i. 13, where we have

rendered it, ' injurious.' In the Septnagint often;

and at Job xl. 6, 7 ; Isa. ii. 12, in connexion with

v7r€p7](j)apo(; : as the two, in like manner, are cou-

NEW TESTAMENT. 143

nected by Aristotle {Rhet. ii. 16). Other words with

winch it is associated, are aypuos (Homer, Od. vi.

120) ; aTaaeaXos {lb. xxiv. 282) ; aStfco^; (Plato, Zegg.

i. 630 h) ; virepoiTTT]'^ (Aristotle, Ethic. JSfic. vi. 3.

21). The v/Spcarrj^ is contumelious ; his insolence

and contempt of others break forth in acts of wan-

tonness and outrage. Thus, when Hanun, king of

Amnion, cut short the garments of king David's

ambassadors, and shaved off half their beards, and

so sent them back (2 Sam. x.), this was v/Spt^. St.

Paul declares that, in the time when he persecuted

the Church, he was v/SpiarT]^ (1 Tim. i. 13 ; cf. Acts

viii. 3), but that he was himself v/Spcadel^ (1 Thess.

ii. 2) at Philippi (Acts xvi. 22, 23). Our blessed

Lord, when He is prophesying the order of His

Passion, declares that the Son of Man v^piadrja-erai

(Luke x\m. 32), as w^e have later the account of

the v^pi^ which He actually underwent at the

hands of the Koman soldiery (Matt, xxvii. 27—30).

The whole blasphemous masquerade of royalty, in

which it was sought that He should sustain the

chief part, was such. Tacitus, describing the deaths

of the Christians in I^ero's persecution, adds {A^i-

7ial. XV. 44) : Pereuntibus addita hidibria ; they

died, he would say, //.e^' v/3peco<;: the same applies

to York, when, in Shakspeare's Henry VI., the pa-

per crown is set upon his head, before Margaret

and Clifford stab him.

1^4 SYNONYMS OF THE

Cruelty and lust are the two great spheres in

which v^pi^ will display itself; or rather not two;

— for they are one and the same sin, and when

Milton wrote, " lust hard by hate," saying much, he

yet did not say all ;— but the two forms in w^hich it

w^ill mainly display itself ; and, out of a sense that

the latter belongs to it quite as much as the former,

Josephus [Antt. i. 11. 1) characterizes the men of

Sodom as being v^ptaral to men, no less than dae-

/Set? to God. He applies exactly the same phrase

on a later occasion {A?iU. v. 10. 1) to the sons of

Eli; indicating on each occasion presently after,

that by this v^pL<; which he charged on those and

these, he intended an assault on the chastity of

others ; cf. Plutarch, Demet. 21 ; Lucian, Dial. Deor.

vi. 1 ; and the article "T/Speco? hUr] in Pauly's En-

cyclopddie. The true antithesis to v^pLarrj^ is aoo-

<f)pwv (Xenophon, Aj^ol. Sog. 19 ; Ages. x. 2).

The three words, then, are very broadly distin-

guishable from one another, have very different

provinces of meaning severally belonging to each,

and present to us an ascending scale of guilt, such

as I sought to seize at the first, when I observed,

that the three severally expressed a sin in word, in

thought, and in deed.

NEW TESTAMENT. 145

§ XXX.

—

di>TL')(^ptaTO<;, '\}r€vS6')(pLaT0(;.

The word dvTLXpi'O-T0<; is peculiar to the Epistles

of St. Jolm, occuiTiiig five times in them ; 1 Ep. ii.

18, bis ; ii. 22 ; iv. 3 ; 2 Ep. 7 ; and no where be-

sides. But, although St. John only has the word,

St. Paul has, in common with him, a designation

of the person of this great adversary, and of the

marks by which he shall be recognized ; for there

can be no doubt that the avOpcoiro^ tt;? d/jiapria^,

the u/o? T7)9 dircoXela'i, the avofjio^ of 2 Thess. ii. 3,

8, are all of them other designations of the same

person (see Augustine, De Civ. J)ei, xx. 19. 2) ; and,

indeed, to St. Paul and to that j^assage in his wri-

tings we are indebted for our fullest instruction

concerning this great enemy of Christ and of God.

Passing by, as not relevant to our purpose, many

of the discussions to which the mysterious announce-

ment of such a coming foe has naturally given rise,

as, for instance, whether we are to understand by

the Antichrist a single person or a line of persons,

a person or a system, there is only one of these

questions which has a right to occupy us here

;

namely, what the force is of clvtl in this composi-

tion ; docs dvTLXpi'0-'^o<; imply one who sets himself

up against Christ, or one who sets himself up in the

t

lAC} SYNONYMS OF THE

stead of Christ ? Is he an open foe, who seeks vio-

lently to nsurp his seat ; or a false friend, that pro-

fesses to hold it in his name ?

There is no settling this matter off-hand, as some

are in so great a hurry to do ; seeing that avrl, in

composition, has both these forces. It is used often

in the sense of substitution ^' thus, avTLJSaaCkev^^ he

who is instead of the king, ' prorex,' ' viceroy ;

'

avOviraro^^ he who is instead of the consul, ' procon-

sul ; ' avTiheL7rvo<;^ he who fills the place at a feast

of an absent guest ; dvriXvrpov, the ransom paid in-

stead of a person. Then, secondly, there is in avrl

often the sense of oj)j)Osition, as in dvTLOeat<;, clvti-

\oyia, dvTLKeifjbevo^ : and still more to the point,

more exact parallels to dvri'^piaTo?, as expressing

not merely the fact of opposition, but, in the latter

half of the word, the very object against which the

opposition is directed, avjivofjuia (see Suicer, Thes.

s. v.), opposition to law ; dvTL')(6Lp, the thumb, as set

over against the hand ; dvTrjXio^^ Ijing over against,

and so exposed to, the sun ; ^AvrLKdrcov, the title

which Csesar gave to a book which he wrote against

Cato ; ai/r/^eo?,— not indeed in Homer, where it is

applied to Polyphemus {Od. i. YO), and to the suit-

ors (xiv. 18), and must mean ' godlike,' that is, in

strength and power;— but yet, in later use, as in

Pliilo ; with whom dvTiOeo^ z/oO? {De Conf. Ling.

19) can be no other than the ^ adversa Deo mens ;'

liEVV TESTAiI£:NT. 147

and so in the Christian Fathers. And the jests

about an 'Antipater' who sought to murder his

father, to the effect that he was (j)€p(Dvvfio^^ would

be utterly pointless, if avrl in composition did not

bear this meaning. I will not cite 'Avrepw^^ where

the force of avri is more questionable ; and exam-

ples in sufficient number have been quoted already

to prove that in words compounded with avri, some

imply substitution, some opposition ; which being

so, they have equally erred, who, holding one view

of Antichrist or the other, have affirmed that the

word itself decided the matter in their favour. It

does not so ; but leaves the question to be settled

by other considerations. (See on this word avrl-

Xpto-ro^; a masterly discussion by Liicke, Coram, iib.

die Brlefe des Johannes^ pp. 190—194.)

For myself, St. John's words seem to me deci-

sive on the matter, that resistance to, and defiance

of, Christ, not the false assumption of his character

and offices, is the essential mark of Antichrist ; that

which, therefore, we should expect to find embodied

in his name ; thus see 1 John ii. 22 ; 2 John 7; and

in the parallel passage, 2 Thess. ii. 4, he is 6 avriKei-

Ijuevos^ where none will deny that the force of avn

is that of opposition : and in this sense, if not all,

yet many of the Fathers have understood the word.

Thus Tertullian {De Ptcbsc. Hoer. 4) : Qui Anti-

christi, nisi Christi rebelles ? He is, in Theophy-

148 SYNONYMS OF THE

lact's language, ivavTio<; tm XptarSy * TF^'^^cTclirist,'

as tlie Gemans have rightly rendered it ; one who

shall not -pay so much homage to God's word as to

assert its fulfilment in himself, for he shall deny

that word altogether ; hating even erroneous wor-

ship, because it is worship at all, hating much more

the Church's worshij) in sj)irit and in truth ; who,

on the destruction of every religion, every acknow-

ledgment that man is submitted to higher powers

than himself, shall seek to establish his own throne

;

and, for God's great truth, ' God is man,' to substi-

tute his own lie, ' Man is God.'

The term •v/reuS6;^/Dt(7To?, w^ith which we proceed

to compare it, occurs only twice in the E^ew Testa-

ment ; or, if we count, not how often it has been

written, but how often it was spoken, only once ; for

the two passages (Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Mark xiii. 22) are

records of the same discourse. In form the Avord

resembles so many others which appear to have

been combined of -v^eOSo? and almost any other sub-

stantive at will. Thns, ylrevBaTroaroXo^, xjrevSdSeXcjiO';,

'^IrevBoBLhda/caXo'^^ \lr€vSo7rpo(f)7JT7]<^j -xlrevBo/jidpTvp, all

in the ITew Testament ; the last also in Plato. So,

too, in ecclesiastical Greek, '\lr6vSo7roL/j,7]v, -yjrevBoXa-

Tpluy and in classical, yjrevSdjyeXog (Homer), 'xjrevSo-

fjiavTi^ (Herodotus), and a hundred more. The ^freu-

S6xpi'O-T0<; is not one who denies the being of a

Christ ; on the contrary, he builds on the world's

NEW TESTAMENT. 149

expectations of sncli a person ; only he appropriates

these to himself, blasphemously affirms that he is

the Foretold One, in whom God's promises and

men's expectations are fulfilled. Thus Barchochab,

or " the son of the Star,"— as claimiog the prophecy

at Xumb. xxiy. 17 he called himself,— who, in

Adrian's reign, stirred up again the smouldering

embers of Jewish insurrection into a flame so fierce

that it consumed himself with more than a million

of his fellow-countrymen,— he was a 'yjr€vS6xpt'O-T0<^

:

and such haye been that long series of blasphemous

pretenders and impostors, the false Messiahs, who,

since the rejection of the true, haye, in almost eyery

age, flattered and betrayed the expectation of the

Jews.

The distinction, then, is plain. The aj/r/p^picTTo?

denies that there is a Christ ; the -yjrevSoxpi'O-ro^ af-

firms himself to be the Christ. Both alike make

war against the Christ of God, and would set them-

selyes, though under dififerent pretences, on the

throne of his glory. And yet, while the words haye

this broad distinction between them, while they

represent two diflerent manifestations of the king-

dom of wickedness, we ought not to forget that

there is a sense in which the final Antichrist will be

a Pseudochrist as well ; eyen as it will be the yery

character of that last reyelation of hell to absorb

iuto itself, and to reconcile for one last assault

150 SYXOXYZilS OF Tirc

against tlie truth, all anterior and subordinate forms

of evil. He will not, it is true, call himself Clirist,

for he will be filled with deadliest hate both against

the name and oflices, as against the whole spirit and

temper, of Jesus of Xazareth, now the exalted King

of Glory. But, inasmuch as no one can resist the

truth by a mere negation, he must ofter and oj^pose

something positive in the room of that faith which

he will assail and endeavour utterly to abolish.

And thus we may certainly conclude, that the final

Antichrist will present himself to the world as, in

a sense, its Messiah ; not, indeed, as the Messiah of

prophecy, the Messiah of God, but still as the

world's saviour ; as one, who, if men will follow

him, will make their blessedness, giving to them the

full enjoyment of a present material earth, instead

of a distant and shadowy heaven ; abolishing those

troublesome distinctions, now the fruitful sources of

so much disquietude and pain ; those, namely, be-

tween the Church and the world, between the spirit

and the flesh, between holiness and sin, between

good and evil. It will follow, therefore, that how-

ever he will not assume the name of Christ, and so

will not, in the letter, be a yp-evSoxpio-ro^;, yet,

usurping to himself Christ's ofiices, presenting him-

self to the world as the true centre of its hopes, as

the satisfier of its needs and healer of its hurts, he

will in fact take up into himself all names and

XEW TESTAMENT. 151

forms of blaspliemj, ^ill be the -^evho-^picrTo^ and

the dvTLXpi'CrTo^ at once.

§ xxxi.

—

fioXvvQjj /JLiaivci),

We have translated both these words, as often

as they occur (the first, at 1 Cor. yiii. T ; Eev. iii.

4 ; xiv. 4: ; the second, at John xviii. 2S ; Tit. i. 15;

Ileb. xii. 15 ; Jude 8), invariably bv the one English

word, ^ defile,' a word which doubtless covers them

both. At the same time there exists a certain dif-

ference between them, or at least between the

images on which they rej^ose— this namely, that

fjioXvv€Lv is properly ' to besmear ' or ' besmirch,' as

with mud or filth, 'todefoul;' which, indeed, is

only another form of the word ' defile ; ' thus Aris-

totle {Hist A?i. vi. IT. 1) speaks of swine, tw TryXS

(jLo\vvovT€^ kavTov^ : cf. Plato, Pol. vii. 535 e j Cant.

V. .3 ; while fiLaiveiv, in its primary sense and usage,

is not ' to smear,' as with matter, but ' to stain,' as

with colour. The first corresponds with the Latin

* inquinare ' (Horace, Sat i. 8. 37), ' spurcare,' (itself

probably from ' porcus '), and is thus exactly equiv-

alent to the German ' besudeln ;' the second with

the Latin ' maculare,' and the German ' beflecken.'

It will follow from what has been said, that while.

152 SYNONY]\IS OF THE

in a secondary and ethical sense, both words have

an equally dishonorable signification, the /uLo\va/xo<:

aapKo^ (2 Cor. vii. 1) being no other than the /juda-

jiara rod KoafMov (2 Pet. ii. 20), this will only hold

good so long as the words are figuratively and ethi-

cally taken ; so taken, ixiaiveiv is the standing word

in classical Greek to express the profaning or un-

hallowing of aught (Plato, Legg. ix. 868 <^/ Tim. 69

d ; Sophocles, Antig. 1031). In a literal sense, on

the contrary, fiLaivecv may be used in good part, just

as, in English, we speak of the staini^lg of glass,

the stai?iing of ivory (see an example of this, Jl. iv.

141), and as, in Latin, the ' macula ' need not of

necessity be also a ' labes ;' /jLoXvpeiVy on the other

hand, admitting of such better use as little in a

literal as in a figurative sense.

§ xxxii.

—

irauhe'ia, vovOeala.

The chief inducement to attempt a discrimina-

tion of these synonyms lies in the fact of their oc-

curring together at Eph. vi. 4, and being often there

not distinguished at all, or erroneously distin-

guished.

UaiheLa is one of those many words, into which

the more earnest spirit of revealed religion has put

NEW TESTAMENT. 153

a deeper meaning than it knew of, till tliat took

possession of it ; the nev\^ wine by a wondrous pro-

cess making new even the old vessel into which it

was i30ured. For the Greeks, TratBela was simply

' education ;

' nor, in all the many definitions of

TratSeia, which are to be found in Plato, is there so

much as the slightest prophetic anticipation of the

new force which the word should obtain. But the

deeper apprehension of those who had learned that

" foolishness is bound in the heart " alike " of a

child" and of a man, while yet "the rod of correc-

tion may drive it for from him " (Prov. xxii. 15), led

them, in assuming the word, to bring into it a fur-

ther thought ; they felt and understood that all ef-

fectual instruction for the sinful children of men,

includes and implies chastening, or, as we are ac-

customed to say, out of a sense of the same truth,

* correction.' ^

Two definitions of TratSela,— the one by a great

heathen philosopher, the other by a great Christian

theologian,— may be fruitfully compared. This is

Plato's definition {Legg. 659 <:Z) : irathda ^lev iaO' 77

TralScov oXk)] t6 koL aycoyr) tt/do? tov vtto tov vofiov

\6yov opOov elprj/Liivov : and this is that of Basil the

Great {Tii Prov. 1) : eaTiv ?5 irai^eia aywyq rt? ox^e-

^ The Greek, indeed, acknowledged, to a certain extent, the

same, in his secondary use of aKoXaaros, which, in its primary,

meant simply 'the tiiichastised.'

7*

154: SYNONYMS OF THE

KTJkihwv avTrjv eKKaOaipovaa. For those who felt and

acknowledged that which is asserted in the second

clause of this last definition, the word came to sig-

nify, not simply ' ernditio,' but, as Augustine ex-

presses it, who has noticed the change {Enarr. in

Ps. cxviii. QQ>\ ''per molestias eruditio.' And this is

quite the predominant use of TratSela and iraiBevecv

both in the Sej)tuagint and in the E"ew Testament

(Lev. xxvi. 18 ; Ps. vi. 1 ; Isa. liii. 5 ; Sirac. xxii. 6;

fjudaTiyes fcal TratSela : Luke xxiii. 16 ; Heb. xii. 5,

7, 8 ; Rev. iii. 19, and often). The only occasion in

the ISTew Testament upon which iraiheveLv occurs in

the old Greek sense, is Acts vii. 22. Instead of

" nurture " at Eph. vi. 4, which is hardly strong

enough a word, ' discipline,' I am persuaded, would

have been preferable— the laws and ordinances of

the Christian household, the transgression of which

will induce correction, being indicated by iraiheia.

NovOeaia, for which the more Attic Greek would

have had vovOeTia or vovOejrjcns (Lobeck, Pliryni-

chioSj pp. 513, 520), is more successfully rendered,

' admonition ; ' which, however, as we must not for-

get, has been defined by Cicero thus : Admonitio

est quasi lenior objurgatio. Exactly so much is in-

tended by vovOeaia here ; the training by word—by the word of encouragement, when no more than

this is wanted, but also by the word of remonstrance,

NEW TESTA^IENT. 155

of reproof, of blame, where these may be required

;

as set over against the training by act and by dis-

cij^line, which is Traidela. It seems to me, therefore,

that Bengel, who so seldom misses, has yet missed

here the distinction, who, on the words, iv iraihela

Kal vovdeala, has this note : Iiarum altera occurrit

ruditati ; altera oblivioni et levitati. Utraque et

sermonem et reliqnam disciplinam inclndit. In

support of that which has been urged above, and

in evidence that vovdeala is the training by word of

mouth, such combinations as the following, jrapat-

veaeL^ Kal vovOedlai (Plutarch, De Coh. Trd, 2) ; vov-

OeTLKol Xoyoo (Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 21) ; ScSaxv Kal

vov6eTT}aL^ (Plato, Pol. 399 h) ; vovOerdv Kal SiSdcr-

K6LV {Prot. 323 d\ may be adduced.

Relatively, then, 'and as by comparison with

TratSeta, vovQeiia is the milder term ; while yet its

mention, associated with that other, teaches us that

this too is a most needful element of Christian edu-

cation; that the iraiZda without it would be very

incomplete ; even as, when years advance, and there

is no longer a child to deal with, it must give place

to, or rather be swallowed up in, the vovOeala alto-

gether. And yet the vovOeaia itself, where need is,

may be earnest and severe enough. The Avord in-

dicates much more than a mere Eli-remonstrance :

" iSTay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear "

(1 Sam. ii. 2-1) ; indeed, of Eli it is expressly re-

156 SYNONYMS OF THE

corded, in respect of those sons: ovic ivovOerec

avTov? (iii. 12). In Plutarch alone we find the word

nnited with /jL€fM-\jn^ {Conj. Prcec. 13) ; with -yjroyo^

{De Adul. et A^n. 17) ; and vovderelv to have con-

tinually, if not always, the sense of admonishing

with Uame {It. 37 ; De Prof, in Virt. 11 ; Conj.

Prcec. 22). Jerome, then, is only i^artially in the

right, when he desires to get rid, at Eph. vi. 4, of

* correptione,' which he found in the Yulgate, and

which still keeps its place there. This he did, on

the ground that in vovOeala no rebuke nor austerity

is implied, as in ' correptio ' there certainly is :

Quam corre])tionem nos legimus, melius in Grseco

dicitur vovOeala^ quae adinonitionem magis et eriidt'

tionem quam aiisteritatem sonat. Undoubtedly, in

vovOeaia such is not of necessity implied, and there-

fore ' correptio ' is not its happiest rendering ; but

the word does not exclude, nay implies this, when-

ever it may be required ; the derivation, from vov^

and TiOrj/jLL, involves as much ; whatever is needed

to cause the monition to be taken home, is implied

in the word.

In claiming for vovOeaia, as compared with and

discriminated from TratSela, that it is predominantly

the admonition hy word, which is also plainly the

view that our translators have taken of it, I would

not at all deny that both it and the verb vovderelv

are used to express correction ly deed, but only af-

NEW TESTAMENT. 157

firm of tlie other— the appeal to the reasonable

faculties— that it is the prevailing use of both ; so

that in such phrases as these of Plato : pdfioov vov-

6eT7)(ri<; {^Legg. TOO c) ; ifK/qr^al^ vovOerelv {Legg. ST9

cZ), the word is used in a secondary and im2rro2)ei\

and therefore more emphatic, sense. Such passages

are exactly parallel to that in Judges, where it is

said of Gideon, that " he took thorns of the wilder-

ness and briers, and with them he taytgld the menof Succoth " (Judg. viii. 16) ; on the strength of

which language, or of any number of similar uses,

no one would seek to deprive the verb ' to teach

'

of having, as its j^rimary meaning, to communicate

orally knowledge from one to another.

§ xxxiii.

—

a(j)ecri<;, Trapeat?.

"A(j)eaL<; is the usual word by which forgiveness,

or remission of sins, is expressed in the 'New Testa-

ment. Derived from dcplijfjLi,, the image which un-

derlies it is, of course, that of a releasing or letting

go;probably the year of jubilee, called constantly

€To^j or ivLavTo^^ ri)^ d<peaew^y or simply d(j>eai<; (Lev.

XXV. 31, 40 ; xxvii. 24), and in which all debts were

to be forgiven, suggested the higher application of

the word. It occurs with considerable frequency,

158 SYNONYMS OF THE

tliougli oftener in St. Luke than in all tlie other

books of the l^ew Covenant put together. On a

single occasion, however, the term irdpeai'^ tooi/

a/jLapTrjfMciTcov occurs (Itom. iii. 25). Our translators

have not noticed, or at least have not marked in

their Version, the variation in the Apostle's phrase,

but render irdpeo-ts here as they have rendered a^e-

<TLs elsewhe]*e ; and many have since justified them

in this, having, after consideration of the subject,

denied that any difference was intended by him.

Others again, and as I believe more rightly, are

persuaded that St. Paul changed his word not

without a reason, but of intention, and because he

wished to say something which nrdpeai'; does ex-

press adequately and accurately, and which dcpeo-c^

w^ould not.

It is known to many, that Cocceius with those

of liis school made much of the variation of w^ords

here, finding herein a great suj)port for a favourite

assertion of theirs, that there was no remission of

sins, in the fullest sense of the words, under the

Old Covenant, no reXelcoai^ (Pleb. x. 1—4:), no entire

abolition of sin even for the faithful themselves, but

only a present jDrcetermission (irdpeaL^), or dissimula-

tion, upon God's part, in consideration of the sacrifice

which was one day to be. On this matter a violent

controversy raged among the theologians of Hol-

land, at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of

NT.W TESTAMENT. 159

the following centmy, wliicli was carried on witli

an nnaccountable acrimony ; and for a brief history

of which the reader may turn to Deyling, Ohss. Sac.

vol. V. p. 209 ; Vitringa, Diss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 3;

Yenema, Diss. Sac. p. T2 ; while the fullest state-

ment of what Cocceius did mean, and in his own

words, may be found in his treatise, Utilitas Dis-

tbictionis duorum Yocahulorum Scrijyturoi.^ irapk-

o-eo)? ct d(f>ecr€cos, Oj:)j). vol. ix. p. 121. Those who

at that time opposed the Cocceian scheme, denied

that there was any distinction between a</)e<7t? and

irdpeat^. But in this they erred : the Cocceians

were undoubtedly wrong, in saying that for the

faithful there was only a irdpeai^, and no acfieac^,

d/jLapTri/jLUTcov, in applying to them what was assert-

ed in respect of the world under the Old Covenant

;

but they were right in maintaining that irdpeac^

was not j^urely and entirely equivalent with d^eai^.

Beza, indeed, had already drawn attention to the

distinction. Having in his Latin Version, as first

published, taken no notice of it, he acknowledges

at a later period his error, saying, Hsec duo pluri-

mum inter se differunt ; and now rendering Trapeo-t?

by ' dissimulatio.'

In the first place, the derivation would a jyiori

suggest a difference of meaning ; if dcpeac^; is re-

mission, Trdpeac^j from irapLTj/iL, will be naturally

'^prce^ermission '— the irdpeat^ d/jLapryfidrajv, the

160 SYXOXYMS OF THE

2yrcetermission or passing ly of sins for the present,

leaving it open in the future either entirely to remit^

or else to punish them, as may seem good. And the

classical usage both of irapikvai and of Trdpeai^

bears out this distinction. Thus Xenophon {Hipj?-

vii. 10) : d/iaprijpLara ov '^prj irapcevaL aKoXaara. Of

Herod Josephus tells us, that being desirous to

punish a certain oifence, yet for other considerations

he passed it by {Antt. xv. 3. 2) : TrapfJKe rijv dpuap-

rlav. When the Son of Sirach (Ecclus. xxiii. 2)

prays to God that He woxilcl not ''^jpass hy " his sins,

he assuredly does not use ov iitj irapfj as = ov jult]

d(j>fj, but only asks that he may not be without a

wholesome chastisement following close on his

transgressions. So, too, on the contrary, when in

proof that Trapecrt? is equivalent to a(/)eo-t?, the fol-

lowing passage, from Dionysius of Halicarnassus

{Antt. Rom. vii. 37) is adduced : t7]v yikv oXoayepr)

TTupeaiV ou^ evpovro, Trjv he eh ')(^p6vov oaov rj^iovv

dva(3o\i^v eXa^ov, it is not 7rdpeaL<;, but 6\oa')(epr)<;

TTupecn^, which is equal to acpeat^, and no doubt the

historian added the epithet out of a feeling that

irdpeai^ would have insufficiently expressed his

meaning without it.

Having seen, then, that there is a great jprimd

facie probability, that St. Paul intends something

different by the Trdpeai^ dfjLapTrjixaTwv^ in the only

place where he thinks good to use this phrase, from

NEW TESTAIVIENT. ,161

that wliicli lie intends in the many where he em-

ploys a^€a-fc9, that passage itself, namely Eom. iii.

25, may now be considered more closely. It appears

in our Version :" Whom God hath set forth to be a

propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare

his righteousness for the reinission of sins that are

past, through the forbearance of God." I would

venture to render it thus :" "Whom God hath set

forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

for a manifestation of his righteousness, hecaiise of

the ]}rc^termission \hicL ryv Trdpecrtv, not Bid t?}9 Tra-

/oecreo)?], in the forbearance of God, of the sins that

went before;" and the exact meaning which I

should attach to the words is this—" There needed,"

St. Paul would say, " a signal manifestation of the

righteousness of God, on account of the long prse-

termission or passing over of sins, in his infinite

forbearance, without any adequate expression of his

wrath against them, during all those long years

which preceded the coming of Christ ; which mani-

festation of God's righteousness found place, when

He set forth no other and no less than his own Son

to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin." There had

been a long period during which God's extreme in-

dignation against sin and sinners was not pro-

nounced ; the time, that is, j)revious to the Incarna-

tion. Of course, this connivance of God, this his

holding his peace, was only partial ; for St. Paul has

162 SYNONYMS OF THE

himself just before declared, that the wrath of God

was revealed from heaven against all -unrighteous-

ness of men (Rom. i. IS) ; and has traced in a few

fearful lines some of the ways in which this revela-

tion of his wrath displayed itself (i. 24—32). Yet

still, it was the time during which He sufiered tlie

nations to walk in their own ways (Acts xiv. 16)

;

they were the times of ignorance which God winked

at (Acts xvii. 30), in other w^ords, of the avo'^r} tov

©eov. But this position in regard of sin could, in

the very nature of things, be only transient and

provisional. With a . man, the prcetermission, or

' prssterition,' as Hammond would render it, of sins

will very often be identical with the remission, the

'TtdpeaL^ will be one with the a(f}eaL<;. He forgets;

he has not power to bring the long past into judg-

ment, even if he would ; or he has not righteous

energy enough to will it. But with an absolutely

righteous God, the irdpeat^ can only be temporary,

and must always find place with a looking on to a

final decision ; every sin must at last either be ab-

solutely forgiven, or adequately avenged. In the

meanwhile, the very Trapecrt? might seem to call in

question the absolute righteousness of Him, who

was thus content to pass by and to connive. God

held his peace, and it was only too near to the evil

thought of man to think wickedly that He was such

an one as himself, morally indifi'erent to good and

NEW TESTAMENT. 163

to evil ; but now (eV rw vvv /cacpw) God, by the

sacrifice of his Son, lias rendered such a perverse

misunderstanding of his meaning in the j^ast dis-

simulation of sin for ever impossible. Bengel ex-

presses Avell this same view, whicli I cannot doubt

is the correct one, of the passage : Objectum praster-

missionis [Tra/jeo-eo)?], peccata; tolerantise [avoxrji\,

peccatores, contra quos non est persecutus Dens jus

suum. Et liiBC et ilia quam diu fuit, non ita appa-

ruit justi'tia Dei : non enim tarn vehementer visus

est irasci peccato, sed peccatorem sibi relinquere,

d/iekelv, negligere. Ileb. viii. 0. At in sanguine

Christi et morte propitiatoria ostensa est Dei jas-

titia, cum vindicta adversus peccatum ipsum, ut

esset ipse Justus, et cum zelo pro peccatoris libera-

tione, ut esset ipse justificans. Compare Hammond{in loc), who has seized excellently well the true

distinction between the two words.

He, then, that is partaker of the a(^ecn<;^ has his

sins forgiven, so that, unless he bring them back

upon himself by new and further disobedience

(Matt, xviii. 32, 34 ; 2 Pet. i. 9 ; ii. 20), they shall

not be imputed to him, or mentioned agaiost him

any more ; while the irdpeai^ is indeed a benefit, but

a very subordinate one ; it is the present passing by

of sin, the suspension of its punishment, the not

shutting up of all ways of mercy against the sinner,

the giving to him of space and helps for repentance,

164 SYNONYMS OF THE

as it is said at AYiscl. xi. 24 : Trapopa^ afxapTt'i^iara

avOpcoTTwv eh pberdvoiav. If this repentance follow,

then the irdpeai'^ will be swallowed up in the d(pe(Ti<;,

but if not, then the punishment, suspended but not

averted, in its due time will arrive (Luke xiii. 9).

§ xxxiv.

—

fiwpoXoyia, ala')(po\oyla, evrpaireXia.

McopoXoyla, a word employed by Aristotle, but

not of frequent use till the later Greek, is rendered

well in the Yulgate, on the one occasion of its oc-

currence in Scripture, Eph. iv. 5, by ' stultiloquium,'

a comj)Ound word, it may be first coined by Plautus

{Jlil. GloT. ii. 3. 25) ; although one which did not

find more favour and currency in the after language

of Eome, than the ' stultiloquy ' with which Jeremy

Taylor sought to reproduce it, with us. It will in-

clude not merely the irav prujua dpybv of our Lord,

(Matt. xii. 36), but in good part also the Tra? \oyo<;

aairpo^ of his Apostle (Eph. iv. 29) ; discourse, as

everything else about the Christian, needing to be

seasoned with the salt of grace, and being in danger

of growing first insipid, and then corrupt, without

it.

It seems to me, that those who stop short with

the dpya ptj/jbara, as if those alone were included in

NEW TESTAMENT. 165

the word, fail to exhaust the fulness of its meaning.

Thus Calvin too weakly : Sermones inepti ac inanes,

nulliusque frngis ; and even Jeremy Taylor, in his

sermons On the Good and Evil Tongue (Serm. xxxii.

j)t. 2), hardly comes up to the full force of the^'ord.

The remarkable passage in which he unfolds the

meaning of the fxapoXoyla begins thus :'• That

which is here meant by stultiloquy or foolish speak-

ing is the ' lubricum verbi,' as St. Ambrose calls it,

the ' slipping with the tongue ' which prating peo-

ple often suffer, whose discourses betray the vanity

of their spirit, and discover ' the hidden man of the

heart.' " In heathen writings, /xcopoXoyia may very

well be used as little more than equivalent to a8o-

\ea-)(^La^ ' random talk,' and ficopoXoyetv as equivalent

to \rjpelv (Plutarch, De Garr, 4) ; but words obtain

a new earnestness when they are assumed into the

ethical terminology of Christ's school. JSJ'or in seek-

ing to enter fully into this word's meaning, ought

vs'e to leave out of sight the greater emphasis which

the words ' fool,' ' foolish,' ' folly,' obtain in the lan-

guage of Scripture, than elsewhere they have, or

can have. There is the positive of folly as well as

the negative to be taken account of, when we are

weighing the force of ixwpoXoyia : it is that ' talk of

fools,' which is folly and sin togetlier.

Ala-^pokoyla also occurs only once in the XewTestament (CoL iii. bi, and is not to be cunfounded

IGG - SYKONYMS OF THE

with ala^porris^ Epli. Y. 4. By it the Greek Fathers

(see Suicer, Thes. s. y.), and most expositors after

them, haYC understood, obscene discourse, ' tnrpilo-

qiiinm,' snch communication as ministers to Y\'an-

tonness, 6')(rjfia iropvela^, as Chrjsostom calls it.

Thus Clemens of Alexandria has a chapter in his

Pcedagogus (ii. 6), UepX ala^poXo^la^^ in which he

recognises no other meaning but this. Xor is it

otherwise with our oy'u Yersion, which has rendered

the word by ' filthy communication.' JSTow, beyond

a doubt, alcrxpoXoyLa has sometimes this sense pre-

dominantly, or cYcn exclusiYely ; thus Xenophon,

De Lac. Rep. v. 6 ; Aristotle, De Rep. Yii. 15 ; EjdIc-

tetus, Man. xxxiii. 16 ; and see Becker's Charikles^

1st ed. Yol. ii. p. 264. But Yery often, indeed more

generally, by alaxpoXoyia is indicated all foul-

mouthed abusiYeness of CYcry kind, not excluding

this, one of the most obYious kinds, most ready to

hand, and most offensiYe, but still not intending by

the alaxpd of the word, to point at such alone.

Thus Polybius, Yiii. 13. 8 ; xxxi. 10. 4 : alaxpoXoyla

KOL XotSopia Kara tgv (SaaiXeco'^ : and compare the

phrase ala^poXoyia icj)' lepoh. Plutarch also {De

Lib. Educ. 14), denouncing all alaxpokoyia as un-

becoming to youth ingenuously brought up, includes

in it evei'y license of the ungoYerned tongue, em-

ploying itself in the abuse of others; and I ampersuaded that St. Paul, usiug the word, is forbid-

NEW TESTAilENT. 107

cling the same. The context or company in which

the word is found goes far to prove this ; for all the

other things which he is here prohibiting, are the

outbreaks of a loveless spirit toward our neighbour;

and so, I cannot but believe, is this.

But by far the most interesting word in this

group remains still to be considered. EvTpaireXLa,

a finely selected word of the world's use, which

however St. Paul uses not in the world's sense, like

its synonyms just considered, is only met with once

in the JSTew Testament (Eph. v. 4). Derived from

6v and TpeireaOai^ that which easily turns, and in

this way adapts itself to the shifting circumstances

of the moment, to the moods and conditions of

those with whom at the moment it may deal ;' it

has not of necessity, nor indeed had it more than

slightly and occasionally in classical use, that evil

signification which, in the use of St. Paul, and of

the ethical writers of the Church, it exclusively ac-

quired. On the contrary, Thucydides, in that pane-

gyric of the Athenians which he puts into the

mouth of Pericles, employs evrpaTreXco^ (ii. 41) as

= €vjavi]Tm, to characterize the versatility, the

' versatile ingenium,' of his countrymen. Aristotle

also, as is well kno^vn, gives praise to the evrpdire-

^ That St. Paul himself could be eiirpaTreAos in this, the better

sense of the word, he has given the most illustrious proofs, Acts

XX si. 29.

108 SYNONYMS OF THE

iVo? or e'mhe^io<i {Ethic. Nic. iv. 8), as one who keeps

the due mean between the P<£nxo\6yQ<^ and ci'ypoiKos

in whatever pleasanty or banter he may allow him-

self. He is no mere yeXaroiroco^ or bniioon ; never

exceeds the limits of becoming mirth, nor ceases to

be the gentleman ; and we find in Plato {Pol. viii.

563 «), evrpairekia joined with ycipL^vTi<jyb6<; : as it

is in Plutarch {pe Adul. et Am. 7), in Josephus

{Antt. xii. 4. 3), and in Philo {Ze^. ad Cai. 45),

with xtijOt?.

At the same time, there were not wanting even

in classical usage, anticipations of that more unfa-

vourable signification which St. Paul should stamp

ujDon the word, though they appear most plainly in

the adjective evrpaTreXo^ : thus, see Isocrates, vii.

49 ; and Pindar, Pyth. i. 93, where Dissen traces

well the downward progress of the word : Primum

est de facilitate in motu, tum ad mores transfertur,

et indicat hominem temporibus inservientem, dici-

turque tum de sermone urbano, lepido, faceto, im-

primis cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis

notatione. In respect of only gradually acquiring

an unfavourable significance, evrpairekia has a his-

tory closely resembling that of the Latin ' m-bani-

tas,' which would be the hapjDiest equivalent by

which to render it, as indeed Erasmus has done

;

' scurrilitas,' which the Yulgate has, is altogether

at fault. There needs only to quote in proof the

NEW TESTA3IENT. 169

words of Cicero, Pro Ccel. 3 : Contumelia, si petu-

lantiiis jactatur, convicium ; si facetius, urbanitas

nominatur ; which agrees with the striking phrase

of Aristotle, that the evrpairekla is TreTraLSev/jLevr]

v^pL<; : cf. Phitarch, Cic. 50. Ah'eady in Cicero's

time (see Hhet. ii. 12) ^ urbanitas ' had begun to ob-

tain that questionable significance, which, in the

usage of Tacitus {Hist. ii. 88) and Seneca {De Ird,

i. 28), it far more distinctly acquired.

Biit the fineness of the form in which evil might

array itself could not make a Paul tolerant of the

evil itself; he did not consider that sin, by losing

all its coarseness, lost half, or any j)art of, its mis-

chief; on the contrary, that it might so become far

more dangerous than it was before. In the finer

talk of the world, its ^persiflage,' its 'badinage,'

there is that which would attract many, whom scur-

rile bufi*oonery would only revolt and repel ; who

would in like manner be in no danger of lending

their tongue or ear to foul-mouthed abuse. A far

subtler sin is noted here than in either of the other

words, and not a few would be now touched, whomthe preceding monition had failed to find out. Thus,

Bengel (m loc.) has well observed : Hcec subtilior

quam turpitudo aut stultiloquium ; na?7h ingenio

nititur ; and Jerome : De prudenti mente descendit,

et consulto appetit qiitcdara vel urbana verba, vel

rustica, vel turpia, vel faceta. I sliould only object

8

170 SYNONYMS OF THE

to the 'rustica vel turpia,' whicL. belong rather to

the other forms in Avhich men offend with the tongue

than to this. It always belongs to the €vrpdireko^^

as Chrysostom notes, aareia Xejeiv. He keeps ever

in mind the observation of Cicero [jDe Orat. ii. 58)

:

Hsec ridentur vel maxime, qu83 notant et designant

turpitudinem aliqiiam non tnrj)iter. There would

need polish, refinement, knowledge of the world,

wit, to be an evrpdireXo^ even in this worser sense

of the word ;— although these, of course, enlisted

in the service of sin, and not in that of the truth.

The very profligate old man in the Ifiles Gloriosus

of Plautus, iii. 1. 42—52, who at the same time

j)rides himself, and with reason, on his wit, his ele-

gance and refinement (cavillator lepidus, facetus) is

exactly the evrpdireko^; : and remarkably enough,

when we remember that empaireKla being only ex-

pressly forbidden once in Scripture, is forbidden to

Ephesians, we find him bringing out that all this

was to be expected from him, being that he was an

Ej)hesian : Post Ephesi sum natus ; non enim in

Apulis, non Animulge.

While then by all these words are indicated sins

of the tongue, it is yet with a difference. In fiwpo-

Xoyia the foolishness, in ala')(^po\oyLa the foulness,

in evrpairekla the false refinement, of discourse

which is not seasoned with the salt of grace, are es-

j)ecially noted.

NEW TESTAMENT. 171

§ XXXV.

—

XarpevcOy Xetrovpyeco.

In both these words lies the notion of service,

but of service under certain special limitations in

the second, as compared with the first. Aarpeve'Lv,

as indicated by the words with which it is allied,

Xdrpc^, ' an hired servant,' Xdrpov, ' hire,' is properly,

^ to serve for hire.' Already, however, in classical

Greek both it and Xarpela are occasionally trans-

ferred from the service of men to the service of the

higher powers ; as by Plato, Aj?ol. 23 c: r] tov Qeov

Xarpeia: cf. Phmdr. 24:4-6; and the meaning, which

in Scripture is the only one which the words know,

is anticipated in part. In the Septnagint Xarpevecv

is never used to express any other service but either

that of the true God, or of the false gods of hea-

thenism. The single seeming exception, Deut.

xxviii. 48, is not such in fact ; so that Augustine

has perfect right when he says {De Civ. Dei, x. 1,

2) : Aarpeta secundum consuetudinem qua locuti

sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut sem-

per, aut tam frequenter ut psene semper, ea dicitur

servitus quse pertinet ad colendum Deum.

AecTovpyeLv is a word boasting of a somewhat

nobler beginning ; it signified, at first, to serve the

state in a public oflice or function ; from Xelros

1Y2 SYNONYMS OF THE

( == Sr]fjb6(jLos;)j and epyov. It resembled Xarpevecv

in this, tliat it was occasionally transferred to the

highest ministry of all, the ministry of the gods

(Diodorus Siculus, i. 21). When the Christian

Church was forming its terminology, which it did

partly by shaping new words, but partly also by

elevating old ones to higher than their previous

uses, it more readily, as regarded the latter, adopted

those which had before been employed in the civil

and political life of the Greeks, than such as had

plaj^ed their part in religious matters ; and this,

even when it was seeking for the expression of reli-

gious truth. The reasons which induced this were

the same which caused it more willingly to turn

basilicas,— buildings, that is, which had been used

in civil life,— than temples, into churches ; namely,

because they were less haunted with the clinging

associations of heathenism. Of the fact itself wehave a notable example in the words Xeirovpyo^,

XecTovpyla, XecTovpyelu. It is probably well known

to all how prominent a place in ecclesiastical lan-

guage these words assumed. At the same time, in

this case also the transition had been made more

easy, the way for it had been j^repared, by the Sep-

tuagint ; and by Philo {De Prof. 46i). Is^either by

these, however, nor yet by the Christian writers

who followed, were the words of this group so en-

tirely alienated from their primary uses as Xarpeia

NEW TESTA^LEXT. 173

and Xarpeveiv had been ; being still occasionally

used for the ministry loito men (2 Sam. xiii. 18 ; 1

Kings X. 5 ; 2 Kings iv. 13 ; Eom. xv. 27 ; Phil. ii.

25, 30).

From the distinction already existing between

Xarpevetv and Xecrovpyeiv, before the Church had

anything to do with them, namely that Xarpevetv

was ' to serve,' XeLrovpyelv, ' to serve in an office and

ministry,' are to be explained the diflerent uses to

which they are severally turned in the Xew Testa-

ment, as, indeed, previously also in the Septuagint.

To serve God is the duty of all men ; the Xarpevetv,

therefore, and the Xarpeia are demanded of the

whole people (Exod. iv. 23 ; Deut. x. 12 ; Josh. xxiv.

31 ; Matt. iv. 10 ; Acts vii. 7 ; Eom. ix. 4) ; but to

serve Him in special offices and ministries is the

duty and ]3rivilege only of a few, who are set apart

to the same ; and thus in the Old Testament the

Xetrovpyecv and the Xetrovpyia are ascribed only to

the priests and Levites who were separated to min-

ister in holy things ; they only are Xetrovpyot

(Xumb. iv. 21 ; 1 Sam. ii. 11 ; Xehem. x. 39;

Ezek. xliv. 27) ; which language, mutatis mutandis,

reappears in the Isew ; where not merely is that

old priesthood and ministry designated by this lan-

guage (Luke i. 23 ; Heb. ix. 21 ; x. 11), but that of

apostles, prophets, and teachers in the Church (Acts

xiii. 2 ; Eom. xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17), as well as that

174 STNONT^IS OF THE

of the Great High Priest of our profession, who is

TO)v dytcbv \€LTovpy6<s (Heb. viii. 2)/

It may be urged against the distinction here

drawn that Xarpeveiv and Xarpeia are sometimes ap-

plied to official ministries, as at Heb. ix. 1, 6. This

is, of course, true; just as where two circles have

the same centre, the greater will necessarily include

the less. The notion of service is such a centre

here ; in XeLTovpyelv this service finds a certain

limitation, in that it is service in cm office : it fol-

lows that every \uTovpyia w^ill of necessity be a

Xarpeia^ but not, vice versa, every Xarpeia a Xetrovp-

yia. I know no passage which better brings out

the distinction between these two words which I

have sought to trace, than Ecclus. iv. 14, where

both occur: ol Xarpevovres amfi [i.e. rfj ^o(f>icf]

Xenov pyrjaovaLv 'Ayla. "They that sei've her,

shall 'minister to the Holy One."

^ In later ecclesiastical use there has been sometimes the at-

tempt to push the special application of Kenovpyia still further,

and to limit its use to those prayers and offices which stand in

more immediate relation to the Holy Eucharist.

NEW TESTANIENT. J < O

§ xxxvi.

—

TrivT]';, 'TrT(0')(6<i.

Ix both these words the sense of poverty, and

of poverty in this world's goods, is involved;yet

have they severally meanings which are exclusively

their own. It is true that irevrj<; and 'in(D')(6s contin-

ually occur together in the Septuagint, in the Psalms

especially, with no rigid demarcation of their mean-

ings (as at Ps. xxxix. 18 ; Ixxiii. 22 ; Ixxxi. 4 ; cf.

Ezek. xviii. 12 ; xxii. 29); very much as our "poor

and needy ; "' and whatever distinction may exist in

the Hebrew between 'p'^^K and ''3?, the Alexandrian

translators have either considered it not rej)roduci-

ble by the help of these words, or have not cared to

reproduce it ; for they have no fixed rule in regard

of them, translating the one and the other by tttci)-

;vo? and irevq^ alike. Still there are passages which

show that they were perfectly aware of the distinc-

tion, and would, where it seemed to them needful,

maintain it; occasions upon which they employ

irkvr}^ (as Deut. xxiv. 16, IT ; 2 Sam. xii. 1, 3, 4),

and where, as will presently be evident, irrco'xp'i

would have been manifestly unfit.

TlevT]^ occurs only once in the Xew Testament (1

Cor. ix. 9), while tttooxo^ some thirty or forty times.

Derived from irkvofiaL, and connected with 7r6vo<;,

176 SYNONYMS OF THE

irovio/jLai, and tlie Latin ' pennria/ it properly signi-

fies one so poor that he earns liis daily bread by Lis

labour; Hesycliius calls liim well avToSidKovo<;, as

one who by his own hands ministers to his own ne-

cessities. The word does not indicate extreme want,

or anything ap2:)roaching to it, any more than the

' pauper ' and ' paupertas ' of the Latin ; but only

the ' res angusta ' of one to whom TrXouo-to? would

be an inappropriate epithet. What was the popular

definition of a irevrj^; we learn from Xenophon {2Lem.

iv. 2. 37 : tou? \xh> oljiau /jlt) licava e')(QVTa<=; eh cl Be?

reXelv, irivrjra^; • tou9 5e TrXelco TOiV Uavcov irXovalov'^.

nevr)<i was an epithet commonly apj)lied to Socrates

(Xenophon, (Econ. ii. 3) ; and irevla he claims more

than once for himself (Plato, Aj^ol. 23, c; 31 e).

"What his irevla was, he explains in the passage from

Xenophon referred to ; namely, that all which ho

had, if sold, would not bring five Attic minse. So,

too, the TJevearai in Thessaly, (if, indeed, the deri-

vation of the name from ireveaOau is to stand,) were

a subject population, but not reduced to abject

want ; on the contrary, retaining partial rights as

boors or cultivators of the soil.

But while the TreV?;? is ' pauper,' the 7rT&>;)^09 is

^mendicus;' he is the 'beggar,' and lives not by

his own labour or industry, but on other men's

alms (Luke xvi. 20, 21) ; one therefore whom Plato

would not endure in his ideal State {Legg. xi. 936 c).

NEW testa:mext. 177

If indeed we fall back on etymologies, 7rpoaaLT7j<; (a

word which ought to be replaced in the text at

John ix. 8), or iTTaLTr}^;^ would be the more exactly

equivalent to our ' beggar.' Tertullian long ago

noted the distinction between irrcoxo'i and Trevrj^;

{Adv. Marc. iv. 14), for having to do with our

Lord's words, (jLaKaptoL ol TrTco-^ol (Luke vi. 20), he

changes the ' ^eati pauperes,^ which still retains its

place in the Yulgate, into ^ Beati mendici,^ and jus-

tifies the change, observing, Sic enim exigit inter-

pretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est.

The words then are markedly distinct ; the TreV?;?

is so poor that he earns his bread by daily labour,

the irrwyo^ is so poor that he only obtains his living

by begging. The 7rTaj;^6? has nothing, the irkvy]^ has

nothing superfluous. (See Doderlein, Lat. Synon.

vol. iii. p. 117.) The two, rrevia (= paupertas) and

TTTwx^i-a (= egestas), may be sisters, as one in Aris-

tophanes will have them {Plut. 549) ; but if such,

yet the latter very far more destitute of the world's

goods than the former, and indeed Uevia in that

passage seems inclined to disallow wholly any such

near relationship as this. The words of Aristopha-

nes, in which he plays the synonymist between

them, have been often quoted :

TTTa'XoC [xkv yap Plos, tv <rv Xeyeis, ^r)v icTTiv /xtjSej/ exoi'Ta- rov Se

Trej/TjTos, ^y\v (psioo/xevou, Koi to7s epyois 'Kpoai-)(^Qina, irtpiyiyv^ada.i

5' avTw jxriZ^v, jxr] /levroi /xtjS' iiriXeiTreiu.

8*

178 SYNONYMS OF THE

§ xxxvii.

—

6v/x6<;, opjr]^ irapopyia^o';.

QvfjLo^ and opyrj are found several times together

in the N'ew Testament, as at Rom. ii. 8 ; Ej^h. iv. 3

;

Col. iii. 8 ; Rev. xix. 15 ; often also in the Septua-

gint, 2 Chron. xxix. 10 ; Mic. v. 15 ; and often also

in other Greek (Isocrates, xii. 81 ; Polybius, vi. 56.

11 ; Josephns, Antt. xx. 5. 3 ; Plutarch, JDe Coh.

Ird^ 2) ; nor are they found only in the connexion

of juxtaj)osition, but one of them made dependent

on the other ; thus ^u/xo? t^? 0/37^9 (Rev. xvi. 9 ; cf.

Job iii. IT ; Josh. vii. 26) ; while 0/37^ OvpLov^ not

occurring in the New Testament, is of constant re-

currence in the Old (Ps. Ixxvii. 49 ; Lam. i. 12

;

Isa. XXX. 27; Hos. xi. 9).

When these words, after a considerable anterior

history, came to settle down on the i:)assion of anger,

as the strongest of all passions, im^Dulses and desires,

and to be used predominantly as expressions of it

(see Donaldson, JSfew Cratylus, pp. 675—679), the

distinguishing of them one from another, a good

deal occupied grammarians and philologers. They

felt, and rightly, that the existence of a multitude

of passages in which the w^ords were perfectly in-

differently used (as Plato, Legg. 867), made nothing

against the fact of such a distinction ; all which, in

NEv/ testa:meisT. 179

seeking to desjnonjmize the two, tliey assumed

was, that the words could not be indifferently used

in all cases. The general result of their disquisi-

tions is, that in ^u/^o? ^ (connected with Qvo^^ and

derived, according to Plato, airo rrj^ 6v(T€co<;, Crat.

419 <?), is more of the turbulent commotion, the

boiling agitation of the feelings, either presently to

subside and disappear,— like the Latin ' excandes-

centia,' which Cicero defines {Tusc. iv. 9), Ira nas-

cens et modo desistens,— or else to settle down into

op7?7, wherein is more of an abiding and settled

habit of the mind {' ira inveterata'), 'with the j)ur-

pose of revenge ; the German ' Zorn.'

This the more 23assionate, and at the same time

more temporary, character of 6vii6^ {6v[jloI accord-

ing to Jeremy Taylor, are "great but transient

angers"), may explain a distinction of Xenophon,

namely that Ovfio^ in a horse is what opyrj is in a

man {De Be Eqiiest.\K. 2; cf. Plutarch, Gryll. 4,

in fine). Thus the Stoics, who dealt much in defi-

nitions and distinctions, defined ^u/a6? as op^r]

apxojJ'evT] (Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 63. 114) ; and

Ammonius : 6v/xb<; fiev iari Trpoo-Kacpo^" 6pj7] Be

iTo\v^p6vio<; pLvrjaiKaKia. Aristotle too, in his won-

' It is commouly translated * furor' in the Vulgate. Auj'ustine

{Enarr. in Ps. Ixxxvii. 8) is dissatisfied with the application of this

word to God, 'furor' beiug commonly atti'ibuted to those out of a

sound mind, and proposes 'indignatio' in its room.

180 SYNONYMS OF THE

derful comj)arison of old age and youth, character-

izes the angers of old men {Hhet. ii. 11) : koX ol

Ovfiol, 6^€L^ /jL€v elatVj aaOevel^ hi— like fire in straw,

qnickly blazing np, and as quickly extinguished.

Origen {hi Ps. ii. 5, Oj)}?. vol. ii. p. 51:1) has a discus-

sion on the words, and arrives at the same results :

hiai^epeL he Ovfio^ opjr}'^, rS Ov/jlov fiev elvai opyiju

avadvfJLLWiievi-jV koI en eKKaL0(iev7]V' opyrjv Be ope^LV

dvTLTip,cop7jaeco^. This agrees with the Stoic defini-

tion of opyy], that it is eVi^f/x/a riyCtw^/a?.

The TrapopyicTfjio^ of Eph. iv. 26,— a word which

does not occur in classical Greek, but several times

in the Septuagint, as at 1 EJin. xv. 30 ; 2 Kin. xix. 3,

—

is not = opyi]^ however we may translate it ' wrath.'

This it cannot be ; for the Trapopyiapio^ there is ab-

solutely forbidden ; the sun shall not go down upon

it; whereas under certain conditions opyrj is a right-

eous passion to entertain. The Scripture has nothing

in common with the Stoics' absolute condemnation

of anger ; it takes no such loveless view of other

men's sins as his who said, aeavrov pir) rdpaaae'

d/naprdvet rt? ; eavrw d/juaprdveL (Marc. Ant. iv. 46).

It inculcates no dirddeia, but only a p^erpcoirddeia :

and even as Aristotle {Ethic. Nic. vii. 7), in agree-

ment with all deeper ethical writei-s, had affirmed

before, that when guided by reason anger is a right

affection, so the Scripture permits, and not only per-

mits, but when the right occasion for it has arrived,

NEW TESTAMENT. 181

demands it. This all the profoimder teachers of the

Church have allowed ; thus Gregory of Xyssa

:

ayaOhv ktt)p6<; iarcv 6 6v/i6<i, orav rod Xoyicr/jLov viro-

^vyiov yevrjTai : Angustine {De Civ. JDei, ix. 5) : In

discipliua nostra non tarn quseritur iitrum pins ani-

mus irascatur, sed cjuare irascatur. There is a

" wrath of God," a wrath also of the merciful Son

of Man (Mark iii. 5), and a wrath which righteous

men not merely may, but as they are righteous, must

feel; nor can there be a surer and sadder token of an

utterly prostrate moral condition than the not be-

ing able to be angry with sin— and sinners ; see the

words of Plato {Legg. T31 h) : dv/jLoetSf] fiev ')(^pr} iravra

dvSpa elvat. k. t. X.^ St. Paul is not therefore, as so

many understand him, condescending here to hu-

man infirmity, and saying, "Your aDger shall not

be imputed to you as a sin, if you put it away be-

fore nightfall " (see Suicer, Thes. s. v. opy?}) ; but

rather, "Be ye angry, yet in this anger of yours

suffer no sinful element to mingle ;" there is that

which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the

irapopyKTfjLo'^^ the irritation, the exasperation ('exa-

cerbatio'), which must be dismissed at once; that

so, being defecated of this impurer element which

^ "Anger," says Fuller {Holy State, iii. 8), "is one of the binews

of the soul ; he that wants it hath a maimed mind, and with Jacob

sinew-shrunk in the hollow of his thigh, must needs halt. Nor is

it good to converse with such as cannot be angry."

182 SYNONYMS OF THE

miogled with it, that only which ought to remain,

may remain.

§ xxxviii.

—

eXaiov, fivpov (xp^^: a\€i(j)co).

It has been sometimes denied that in the Old

Testament there is any distinction between these

words ; and that on the very insufficient grounds

that the Septuagint renders Ta^iJ sometimes by /mvpov

(Prov. xxvii. 9 ; Cant. i. 3 ; Isa. xxxix. 2 ; Am. vi. 6)

;

though much more frequently, indeed times out of

number, by eXacov. But how often in a single word

of one language are latent two words of another

;

especially, when that other abounds, as does the

Greek compared with the Hebrew, in finer distinc-

tions, in a more subtle notation of meanings ; for

example, irapocfzia and irapa^okr) in the Hebrewb^^, and this duplicity of meaning it is the part of

a well-skilled translator to evoke. JSTay the thing

itself, the fivpov (= ' unguentum ') so naturally grew

out of the ekaiov (= ' oleum' ), having oil for its

base, with only the superaddition of spice or scent

or other aromatic ingredients,— Clement of Alexan-

dria {Pcedag. ii. 8) calls it "adulterated oil" (8e8o-

Xwjievov eXaiov^),— that it would be long in any

' Compare wliat Plutarch sajs of Lycurgus {Apoth. Lac. 18):

r}> fxev fxvpov i^e\a(rev, cos rov iXaiov (pOopav koX oAedpov.

NEW TESTAMENT. 183

language before the necessity of differencing words

would be felt. Thus in the Greek itself fivpov is

not found earlier than Archilochus, who was the

first to emj^loy it (Athenseus, xv. 37). Doubtless

there were ointments in Homer's time ; he is satis-

fied however with ' sweet-smelling oil,' ' roseate oil

'

(euwSe? eXai.ov, Od. ii. 339;poSoev eXacov, II. xxiii.

186), wherewith to express them.

But that in later times there was a clear distinc-

tion between the two, and a distinction which ut-

tered itself in language, is abundantly evident. I

would only refer in proof to a passage in Xenophon

{Conv. ii. 3, 4), which turns altogether on the greater

suitableness of eXacov for men ; and f^vpov for wo-

men ; these last consequently being better pleased

that the men should savour of the manly oil than

of the effeminate ointment {iXaiov Be rod iv jvpiva-

aLOL'^ ocTfjir) KOL Trapovcra rjSlcov rj fivpov yvvai^\ koI

airovaa TToOeivorepa). And in like manner our

Lord's rebuke to the discourteous Pharisee, " Myhead with oil thou didst not anoint, but this womanhath anointed my feet with ointment " (Luke vii.

46), would lose all or nearly all its point on any

other supposition: "Thou withheldest from me,"

He would say, " cheap and ordinary civilities ; while

she bestowed upon me costly and rare homages ;

"

where Grotius remarks well : Est enim perpetua

avTiGToiyia. Mulier ilia lacrimas impendit pedibus

184 synony:ms of the

Christi proluenclis : Simon ne aquam quidem. Ilia

assidna est in pedibiis Cliristi osculandis : Simon

ne nno quidem oris osculo Cliristum accepit. Ilia

pretioso unguento non caput tantum sed et pedes

perfundit : ille ne caput quidem mero oleo : quod

pei'functorise amicitia3 fuerat.

Some have drawn a distinction between tlie

verbs aXeLcpecv and xp/etz/, which, as they make it

dependent on this between /ivpov and eXaiov, may

deserve to be mentioned here. The akd(f>€LVy they

say, is commonly the luxurious, or at any rate, the

superfluous, anointing with ointment, %pfeiy the

sanitary anointing with oil. Thus Casaubon {ad

Athenceum^ xv. 18) : aXelcfyeaOai dicebantur potissi-

mum homines voluptatibus dediti^ qui pretiosis

iinguentis caput et manus illinebant ; '^^pUaOai de

hominibus ponebatur oleo corpus, sanitatis caussd,

inunguentibus. 'No traces of the observation of

any such distinction appear in the I^ew Testament

;

thus compare Mark vi. 13 ; Jam. v. 4, with Mark

xvi. 1 ; John xi. 2.

A distinction between the words is maintained

there, but it is wholly difl^erent from this ; namely,

that a\€i(f>ecv is the common and mundane, xp/eti^

the sacred and heavenly, word : aXei^eiv is used in-

NEW TESTAMENT. 185

discriminately of all actual anointings, wlietlier with

oil or ointment ; while %/3/eiz/, no doubt in its con-

nexion with ^/9^<jt69, is absolutely restricted to the

anointing of the Son, by the Father, with the Holy

Ghost, for the accomplishment of His great office,

being wholly separated from all secular and com-

mon uses. Thus, see Luke iv. 18 ; Acts iv. 27 ; x.

38 ; 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Heb. i. 9 ; the only occasions on

which %/3tW occurs. The same holds good in the

Septuagint, where XptV^?, y^plafjia (cf. 1 John ii. 20,

27), and y^pieiv, are the constant and ever recurring

words in respect of all religious and symbolical

anointings ; aXei^eiv hardly occurring in this sense,

not oftener, I believe, than at Exod. xl. 13, and

Numb. iii. 3.

§ xxxix.

—

*El3paL0<;, 'JouSato?, ^Icrpai]\LTr]<;,

All these titles are used to designate members

of the elect family, the chosen race;yet they are

very capable, as they are very well worthy, of be-

ing discriminated.

And first, 'E/3pam— a name which dates back

from a period before one, and very long before the

other, of those brought into comparison with it,

were, or could have been, in existence (Josephus,

186 SYNONYMS OF THE

Antt. i. 6. 4). It is best deriYed from ^ns?, the same

word as virep^ 'super;'— in this title allusion being

contained to Abraham's immigration into the land

from the other side of Euphrates ; who was, there-

fore, in the language of the Phoenician tribes among

whom he came, " Abram the Hebrew^' or o Tre/jar?;?,

as it is well given in the Septuagint, Gen. xiv. 13,

being from heyond {irepav) the river. Thus Origen,

In 3£att. tom. xi. 5 : 'E^patoL, o7tlv€<; ip/jLTjvevovrac

TrepaTL/coL. The name is not one by wdiich the chosen

people know themselves, but by wdiich others know

them ; not one which they have taken, but which

others have imposed on them ; and we find the

word's use through all the Old Testament entirely

consistent with this explanation of its rise. In

every case 'E^palo^ is either a title by which for-

eigners designate the people of God (Gen. xxxix.

14, 17 ; xli. 12 ; Exod. i. 16, 19 ; 1 Sam. iv. 6 ; xiii.

19; xxix. 3; Judith xii. 11); or by which they

designate themselves to foreigners (Gen. xl. 15

;

Exod. ii. 7 ; iii. 18 ; v. 3 ; ix. 1 ; Jon. i. 19) ; or by

which they sj)eak of themselves in tacit opposi-

tion to other nations (Gen. xliii. 32 ; Deut. xv. 12;

1 Sam. xiii. 3 ; Jer. xxxriv. 9, 14) ; never, that is, be-

ing used without such an antagonism, either latent

or expressed.

When, however, the name 'lovham arose, as it

did in the later periods of Jewish history (the pre-

NEW TESTA]\IENT. 187

cise time will be presently considered), 'E^palo<s

was no longer used exactly as hitherto it had been.

ISTothing is more frequent with words than to retire

into narrower limits, occupying a part only of that

meaning whereof once they occupied the whole

;

when, through the coming up of some new term,

they are no longer needed in all their former ex-

tent ; and at the same time, through the unfolding

of some new relation, it is no longer desirable that

they should retain it. It was exactly thus with

'E/Spalo^. According to the usage of the word in

the Xew Testament, the point of view external to

the nation, which it once always imjDlied, exists no

longer ; neither is every Jew an 'E^palos now ; but

only those who, whether dwelling in Palestine or

otherwise, have retained the sacred Hebrew tongue

as their native language ; the true comj)lement and

antithesis to 'jE/Spato? being 'EXX7jviaT't]<;, a word

first occurring in the 'New Testament, and used to

designate the Jew who has unlearned his own lan-

guage, and now speaks Greek, and reads the Scrip-

tures in the Sej^tuagint version.

This distinction first appears at Acts vi. 1 ; and is

probably intended in the two other passages, though

these are not without their difficulties, where 'E/Spal-

09 occurs (2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Phil. iii. 15) ; as well as in

the superscription, on whosesoever authority it rests,

of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is important to

188 SYNONYMS OF THE

keep in mind that in language, not in place of habi-

tation, lay the point of difference between the ' He-

brew ' and the ' Hellenist.' He w^as a ' Hebrew,'

wherever domiciled, who retained the use of the

language of his fathers. Thus Paul, though settled

in Tarsus, a Greek city in Asia Minor, can affirm

of himself that he was a ' Hebrew,' and of ' He-

brew' parents (Pliil. iii. 15), though it is certainly

possible that he may mean by these assertions no

more than in a general way to set an emphasis on

his Judaism. Doubtless the greater number of the

' Hebrews ' in this sense w^re resident in Palestine

;

yet still it was not this fact, but their language

which constituted them such.

At the same time it will be good to keep in mind,

that this distinction and opposition of 'Efipaio<; to

'EXkr}ViaTi)'^^ as a distinction within the nation, and

not of that nation with other nations, wdiich is clear

at Acts vi. 1, and probably is intended at Phil. iii.

15 ; 2 Cor, xi. 22, is hardly, if at all, recognized by

later Christian writers, not at all by Jewish and

heathen. With them 'E/3paLo<i is simply equivalent

to 'IovSaLo<; : thus see Plutarch, Syinjp. iv. 6 ; Pau-

sanias, v. 7. 3 ; x. 12. 5 ; while Eusebius, speaking

of Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, who had been but

once in his life at Jerusalem, and who wrote exclu-

sively in Greek, expresses himself in this language

{Ilist. Eccl. ii. 4) : to [xev ovv yeVo? aveKaOev ^EjBpato^

NEW TESTAMENT. 189

rjv : and Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Euse-

biiis (vi. 14), makes continually tlie antithesis to

'EjBpaloL^ not 'EX\.r]vc(TTaL, but "EWrjvef; and eOvrj.

Tlieodoret {Oj?p. vol. ii. p. 124:6) styles tlie Greek-

writing historian, Josephus, avyypacpev^ 'Efipalo^ :

cf. Origen, ^. ad Afric. 5. As little in Josephus

himself, or in Philo, do anj^ traces exist of the l^ew

Testament distinction between 'EXKT^viarrjs and

'E^palos. Only this much of it is recognised, that

'E^paLo<s, though otherwise a much rarer word than

^Iov8aLo<;, is always employed when it is intended to

designate the people on the side of their language

;

a rule v/liich Jewish, heathen, and Christian writers

alike consent to observe, and which still survives in

the fact, that we sj^eak to the present day of the

Jtwlsli nation, but of the Hebrew tongue.

This name 'lovSalog is of much later origin. It

does not carry us back to the very cradle of the na-

tion, and to the day when the father of the faithful

passed over the river, and entered on the j)romised

land ; but keeps rather a lasting record of the period

of national disruption and decline. It arose, and

could only have arisen, witli the separation of the

tribes. Then, inasmuch as the ten tribes, though

with the worst right, assumed Israel as ^ title to

themselves, the two drew their designation from the

chiefest of them, and of Judah came the name

^'^I^^O 5 or 'lovoaloi. Josephus, as far as I have ob-

190 SYNONYMS OF THE

served, never employs it in telling the earlier his-

tory of his people. The first occasion of its use by

him is; I believe, at A^itt. x. 10. 1, and in reference

to Daniel and his young companions. Here, how-

ever, if his own account of the upcoming of the

name were correct, he must have used it by antici-

pation— his statement being that it first arose after

the return from Babylon, and out of the fact that

the earliest colony of those who returned were of

that tribe {Antt. xi. 5. Y) : eKXtjOrjaav Be to ovofia

ef ^9 rj/juepa^ dve^rjcrav ck Bal3v\cbvo<;, airo rrj^ 'lovSa

^uA.?}?, rj<; 7rpcoT7)<; eXOovarj'^ et? iKelvov^ tov^ tottov?,

avTOL re kol t) x^P^ '^V'^ 7rpoa7]yopia<; aur^ /JLereXa-

l3ov. But in this he is clearly in error. We meet

'lovSaloL in books anterior to the Captivity, used in

them as a designation of those who pertained to the

smaller section of the tribes, the kingdom of Judah

(2 Kin. xvi. 6 ; Jer. xxxii. 12 ; xxxiv. 9 ; xxxviii.

19) ; and not first in Ezra, ]S"ehemiah, and Esther;

however in these, and especially in the last, it maybe of far more frequent occurrence.

It is not hard to perceive how the name extend-

ed to the whole nation. "When the ten tribes were

carried into Assyria, and disappeared from the

world's stage, that smaller section which remained

henceforth rej)resented the whole nation ; and thus

it was only natural that 'lovBaco^ should express, as

it now came to do, not one of the kingdom of Judah

NEW testa:ment. 191

as distingiiislied from that of Israel, but any member

of the nation, a Jew in this wider sense, as opposed

to a Gentile. In fact, the word TouSato? underwent

a process exactly the reverse of that which 'E/Spalo^

had undergone. For 'E^paco^, belonging first to

the whole nation, came afterwards to belong only

to a part ; while 'lovSalo^, designating at first only

the member of a part, ended by designating the

whole. It now, in its later, like 'E/Spah^ in its ear-

lier, stage of meaning, was a title with which the

descendant of Abraham designated himself, when

he would bring out the national distinction between

himself and other people (Eom. ii. 9, 10) ; thus

' Jew and Gentile ; ' never ' Israelite and Gentile :

'

or which others used about him, when they had in

view this same fact ; for example, the Eastern Wise

Men inquire, " Where is He that is born King of

the Jews f " (Matt. ii. 2), testifying by the form of

this question, that they were themselves Gentiles,

for they would certainly have asked for the King

of Israel^ could they have claimed any nearer part

or share in Him ; as, again, the Koman soldiers and

the Roman governor give to Jesus the mocking title,

"King of the Jews'' (Matt, xxvii. 29, 37), but his

own countrymen, the high priests, challenge Himto prove by coming down from the cross that He is

"lOng of IsraeV (Matt, xxvii. 42).

For indeed the absolute name, that which ex-

19:^ SYNONYMS OF THE

pressed the whole dignity and glory of a member

of the theocratic nation, of the j)eople in peculiar

covenant with God, was 'lapaTjXirT)^. It is a title

of unfrequent occurrence in the Septuagint, but

often used by Josephus in his earlier history, as

convertible with 'E(3palo<; {Antt. i. 9. 1, 2) ; in the

middle period of it to designate a member of the

ten tribes (viii. 8. 3 ; ix. 14. 1) ; and toward the end

as equivalent to 'IouBa2o<; (xi. v. 4). It is only in its

relation of likeness and difference to this last that

we have to consider it here. It was the Jews' badge

and title of honour. To be descendants of Abra-

ham, this honour they must share with Ishmaelite,

and Edomite ; but none except themselves were the

seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they

were declared to be : nor this only, but more hon-

ourably still, their descent was herein traced up to

him, not as he was Jacob, but as he was Israel,

wdio as a Prince had had power with God and with

men, and had prevailed (Gen. xxxii. 28). That this

title was accounted the noblest, we have ample

proof. Thus, when the ten tribes threw off their

allegiance to the house of David, they claimed in

their pride and j^i'etension the name of " the king-

dom of Israel " for the new kingdom which they

set up— the kingdom, as the name was intended to

imply, in which the line of the promises, the true

succession of the early patriarchs, ran. So, too,

NEW TESTAMENT. 193

there is no nobler title with which our Lord can

adorn Kathanael than that of " an Israelite indeed "

(John i. 47), one in whom all which that name in-

volv^ed, might be indeed found. And when Peter,

and again when Paul, would obtain a hearing from

the men of their nation, when therefore they address

them with the name most welcome to their ears, it

is still ai/Speg 'laparjXlraL (Acts ii. 22 ; iii. 12 ; xiii.

16; cf. Ptom. ix. 4; PhiL iii. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 29);

with which thej seek to acquire their good-will.

When, then, we limit ourselves to the employ-

ment in the INTew Testament of these three words,

we may say that 'E^palo^ is a Hebrew-speaking,

as contrasted with Greek-speaking, or Hellenizing,

Jew ; what in our Version we have well called a

' Grecian,' as distinguished iYom."EXKrjv^ a veritable

' Greek ' or other Gentile ; 'Iov8alo<; is a Jew in his

national distinction from a Gentile ; while 'laparjXt-

T7]<i, the augustest title of all, is a Jew as he is a

member of the theocracy, and thus an heir of the

promises. In the first is predominantly noted his

language, in the second his nationality (lovBa'Ca-fjLo^,

Josephus, J)e Mace. 4 ; Gal. i. 13 ; ^lovSat^eiv, Gal.

ii. 14), in the third his religious privileges, and

glorious vocation.

194: SYNONYMS OF THE

§ xl.

—

alTeo), ipcoTao).

These words are often rendered by tlie authors

of onr Yersion, as thongli there was no difference

between them ; nor can any fault be found with

their rendering, in numerous instances, alrelv and

ipcordv alike by our English ' to ask.' Still it must

be admitted that there are occasions on which they

have a little marred the perspicuity of the original

by not varying their word, where the original has

varied its own. Thus it is, for example, at John

xvi. 23, where the obliteration of the distinction

between alreLv and ipordv suggests very often a

wrong interpretation of the verse,—as though its

two clauses were in nearer connexion, and more

direct antithesis, than in fact they are,—being in-

deed in none. The words as they stand in our

Version are as follows: "In that day ye shall ask

me nothing [e/^e ovk ipcDTrjo-ere ovhev\. Yerily,

verily, I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall ash

[oaa av alrrjOTjTe] the Father in my name, Hewill give it you." Now any attentive student of

the original will acknowledge, that "ye shall ask"

of the first half of the verse has nothing to do with

" ye shall ask " of the second ; that in the first

Christ is referring back to the rjOeXov avTov ipwrdv

NEW TESTA^IENT. 195

of vei". 19 ; to the questions whicli they would fain

have asked Him, but did not venture : "In that

day," He would say, " the day of my seeing you

again, I will by the Spirit so teach you all things,

that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no longer

wishing to ask Me questions, which yet you dare

not put." Thus Lampe well : INTova est promissio

de plenissima cognitionis luce, qua convenienter

ceconomifB 'Noyi Testamenti collustrandi essent.

N^am sicut qu^stio supponit inscitiam, ita qui nihil

amplius quserit abunde se edoctum existimat, et in

doctrina plene exposita ac intellecta acquiescit.

There is not in the verse a contrast drawn between

asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the

Father, which shall begin ; but the first half of the

verse closes the declaration of one blessing, that

they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have

nothing further to inquire ; the second half of the

verse begins the declaration of altogether a new

blessing, that whatever they ask from the Father

in the Son's name. He will give it them. Yet who

will afiirm that this is the impression which the

English text conveys to his mind ?

The distinction between the words is this

:

alrico, the Latin 'peto,' is more submissive and

suppliant, indeed the constant word by which is

expressed the seeking of the inferior from the supe-

rior (Acts xii. 20); of the beggar from him that

196 SYNONYMS OF THE

slioiild give alms (Acts iii. 2) ; of the child from

the parent (Matt. vii. 9 ; Lnke xi. 11 ; Lam. iv. 4)

;

of the subject from the ruler (Ezra viii. 22) ; of manfrom God (1 Kin. iii. 11 ; Matt. vii. 7 ; Jam. i. 5

;

1 John iii. 22 ; cf Plato, Euthyph. 14 : ev'^eaQai

\eaTLv\ alrelv tov9 Oeoix;). 'EpcoTao), on the other

hand, is the Latin ' rogo ;' or sometimes (as John

xvi. 23 ; cf Gen. xliv. 19) ' interrogo,' which in-

deed is the only meaning that in classical Greek it

has ; never there meaning ' to ask,' but only ' to in-

terrogate,' or ' to inquire.' Like the Latin ' rogo,'

'

it implies on the part of the asker a certain equal-

ity, as of king with king (Luke xiv. 32), or, if not

equality, familiarity with him from whom the gift

or favour is sought, which lends authority to the

request.

Thus it is very noticeable, and witnesses for the

remarkable accuracy in the employment of words,

and in the record of that employment, which pre-

vails throughout the New Testament,^ that our Lord

never uses alrelv or alrelaOaL of Himself, in resjpect

of that which He seeks from God ; his is not the

petition of the creature to the Creator, but the re-

quest of the Son to the Father. The consciousness

of his equal dignity speaks out in this, that often as

1 Thus Cicero {Plane, x. 25) : N"eque eniin ego sic rogahmn, ut

pefere viderer, quia fawiliaris esset meus.

NEW TESTAMENT. 197

He asks, or declares that He will ask, anything of

the Father, it is always ipcoTco, ipcorrjcrco, an asking.

that is, as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16 ; xvi. 26

;

xvii. 9, 15, 20), never alrco or alrrjaw. Martha, on

the contrary, plainly reveals her poor unworthy

notions of his person, and in fact declares that she

sees in Him no more than a prophet, ascribing the

alrelaOaL to Him, which He never ascribes to Him-

self: oaa av alT7]crrj rov Qeov, Bcoaec aoi 6 ©eo?

(John xi. 22): on which verse Bengel has these

observations : Jesus, de se rogante loquens ihei]67)v

dicit (Luc. xxii. 32), et ipwnjcrco, et nunquam alrov-

fiat. Kon Greece locuta est Martha, sed tamen

Johannes exprimit improprium ejus sermonem,

quern Dominus benigne tulit : nam alrelaOai vide-

tur verbum esse minus dignum ; c£ his note on

1 John V. 16.

It will follow from what has been said that the

ipwrdv, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch as

it has authority in it, is not proper for us ; and in

no single instance is it used in the Xew Testament

to express the prayer of man to God, of the creature

to the Creator. The only passage where it might

seem to be so used, which therefore might be ad-

duced as contradicting this assertion, is 1 John v.

16 ; which yet constitutes no true exception to the

rule, but rather in its change from alrrjaeL of the

earlier clause of the verse, a strong confirmation of

198 SYNONYMS OF THE

it. "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is

not unto death, he shall ash [atr?;cret], and Heshall give him life for them that sin not unto death.

There is a sin unto death. I do not say that he

shall ^Tay [tW e^(xiTr]orri\ for it;" the Christian

intercessor for his brethren, St. Jolm declares, shall

not assume the authority which w^ould be implied

in making request for a sinner who had sinned the

sin unto death (cf. Mark iii. 29 ; 1 Sam. xv. 35;

xvi. 1), wdiatever this may be, that it might be for-

given to him.

§ xli.

—

avaiTav(ii<^^ dve<jL<;.

Our Version renders both these words by ^ rest;

'

dvd7ravarL<; at Matt. xi. 28 ; xii. 45 ; and aveac^ at

2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 7. ISTo one can

object to this; while yet on examination we at

once perceive that the words repose on different

images, and contemplate this ' rest ' from different

points of vicAV. ^Avdiravai<; (from dvairavcii) implies

the pause or cessation from labour ; it is the con-

stant word in the Septuagint for the rest of the Sab-

bath ; thus Exod, xvi. 23 ; xxxi. 15 ; xxxv. 2, and

often : dveai^ (from dvirjijn) implies the relaxing or

letting down of chords or strings which have before

NEW TESTAMENT. 199

been strained or drawn tight, the exact and literal

antithesis to it being i7rLTaari,<; (from iirtTelvco) : thus

Plato {JPol. i. 349 e) : ev rfj iTrcrdaei, koI aveaei rcov

XopSwv : and Plutarch {De Lib. Ed. 18) : tcl ro^a

fcal ra? \vpa<; avlefxev, Xva lirLTelvai hvv7)6wixev : and

again (Lye. 29) : ovic aveat^ rjv, aXX eiriTaai'; r?;?

iToXneia^. Other quotations illustrative of the

word are the following ; this from Josephus {A71U.

iii. 12. 3), where he says of JMoses that in the jubi-

lee year he gave aveaiv rfj *yy airo re aporpov koI

(fiVTela^ : but the most instructive of all is in Plu-

tarch's treatise, De Lib. Ed. 13 : horeov ovv rol^

iraiolv dvaTTvorjv t(ov avve')(€)V ttovoov^ iv9v/jLovfM6vov<?j

OTL ITOL'^ 6 pLO^ rjflMV 66? dvecTLv KOl (TTTOvhrjV hifiprj-

rai' KOl Std rovTO ov fiovov iyp7]<yopaL<^, aXXd koI

v7rvo<; evpeOij' ovSe iroXefio^;^ dXkd /cal elprjvr]' ovSe

)/€(/i(jL>v, dWd KOL evBla ' ovSe ivepyol irpd^ei^;^ dXkd

Kal eopral. .... KaOoXov he aco^erat^ aco/jia fiev,

ii'Seia kol TrXrjpcoaec • yjrvxv he, dveaet koI ttovg).

The opposition between dveac<; and cTrovhrj which

occurs in this quotation, is found also in Plato

{Legg. iv. 724 a) ; while elsewhere in Plutarch

{Symp. V. 6), dveav^ is set over against aT€vo')(^copia,

as a dwelling at large, instead of in a narrow and

strait room.

When thus we present to ourselves the precise

significance of dv€ai,<;, we cannot fail to note howexcellently chosen the word is at Acts xxiv. 23

;

200 SYNONYMS OF THE

where e')(^6Lv re dveaiv, we translate, "and let him

have liberty.'''' It would be difficult to find a better

word, yet ^liberty' does not exactly express St.

Luke's intention : Felix, taking now a more favour-

able view of Paul's case, commands the centurion

who had him in charge, as the context abundantly

shows, to relax for the future the strictness of his

imprisonment, and it is this exactly which aveai^

implies.

The distinction, then, between it and avdiravai^

is obvious. When our Lord promises dvuTravat^ to

as many as labour and are heavy laden, if only

they will come to Him (Matt. xi. 28, 29), the prom-

ise is, that they shall cease from their toils ; that

they shall no longer weary themselves for very

vanity ; when his Apostle expresses his confidence

that the Thessalonians, troubled now, should yet

find dveaL? in the day of Christ (2 Thess. i. 7), that

which he anticipates for them is not so much rest

from labour, as a relaxing of the strings of endur-

ance, now so tightly drawn, and, as it were, strained

to the uttermost. It is true that this promise and

that are not at their centre two, but one;yet for

all this they present the blessedness which Christ

will impart to his own under diiferent aspects, and

by help of difierent images ; and each word has

its own peculiar fitness in the place where it is

employed.

NEW TESTAMENT. 201

§ xlii.

—

Ta7r€Lvo(f>poavv7]. irpaoTT}'^.

The very work for wliich Christ's Gospel came

into the world was no other than to cast down the

mighty from their seat, and to exalt the hnmble and

meek ; it was then only in accordance with this its

task and mission that it should dethrone the hea-

then virtue /xeyaXoyjrvxla, and set up the despised

raTrecvocppoo-vvr] in its room, stripping that of the

honour which hitherto it had unjustly assumed, de-

livering this from the dishonour which as unjustly

had hitherto been its portion. Indeed the very

word Ta7r€Lvocf)poavv7j is, I believe, itself a birth of

the Gospel ; I am not aware of any Greek writer

who employed it before the Christian sera, or, apart

from the influence of Christian writings, after. Plu-

tarch has got as far as ra'Treiv6<l)p(ov {De Alex, Yirt.

ii. 4), which however he employs in an ill sense;

and the use which heathen writers make of raireivo^;^

raTreivoTT]^, and other words of this family, shows

plainly in what sense they would have employed

ra7reLvo(f>po(Tvvr/, had they thought it good to allow

the word. For indeed the instances in which ra-

TTecvo^ is used in any other than an evil sense, and

to signify aught else than that which is low, slavish,

and mean-spirited, are few and altogetlier excep-

202 SYNONYMS OF THE

tional. Thus it is joined with av€\ev6epo<i (Plato,

Legg. iv. 744 c) ; with ayevvrj^ (Lucian, De Calmn.

24) ; with BovXl/co^;, and with other words of this

stamjD.

Still these exceptional cases are more numerous

than some will allow. Such may be found in Plato,

J^egg. iv. 716 a, where ra7r€cv6<i is linked with K€Koa-

/irj/jbivo^, as in Demosthenes we have Xoyot fiirpcoL

Kol raTreivoL : and see for its worthier use a very

grand passage in Plutarch, De Prof, in Virt. 10.

Combined with these prophetic intimations of the

honour which should one day be rendered even to

the very words which have to do with humility, it

is very interesting to note that Aristotle himself has

a vindication, and it only needs to receive its due

extension to be a complete one, of the Christian

Ta'jTeivo<f)poa-vv7j {Ethio. Ni<i. iv. 3). Having con-

fessed how hard it is for a man t^ akrjOeia /jieyaXo-

'yjrv'^ov elvai— for he will allow no /leyaXo-^vxici

which does not rest on corresponding realities of

goodness, and his /neyaXoylrvxo^i is one /xeyaXcov avrov

a^icbv, a^Lo^ wv— he goes on to observe, though

merely by the way and little conscious how far his

words reached, that to think humbly of oneself,

where that humhle estimate is the true one^ cannot

be imputed to any as a culjjable littleness of spirit

;

it is rather the true acocppoavvrj (o yap jXLKpcav a^Lo<^,

Kol Tovrcov d^Lcov kavTov, acocjipwv). But if this be so

KEW TESTAMENT. 208

(and who will deny it ? ) then, seeing that for every

man the limnhle estimate of himself is the true one,

he has herein unconsciously vindicated the raTreivo-

cf)po(ruv7] as a grace which should be every man's;

for that which Aristotle, even by the light of ethi-

cal philosophy, confessed to be a 'yoKeirov^ namely

TTi aS/qOeia fjieyoKoy^v^ov elvai^ the Christian, con-

vinced by the Spirit of God, knows to be an ahvva-

70V. Such is the Christian raTretvocfipoavvTj, no self-

made grace, and Chrysostom is in fact bringing in

pride again under the disguise of humility, when

he characterises it as a making of ourselves small,

when we are great {raireivo^poavvr) rovro iartv, orav

Tci fjL6ja<i Mv, eavTov TaireivoZ'. and he rejDeats this

often ; see Suicer, Thes. s. v.) ; it is rather the es-

teeming of ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so

;

the thinking truly, and because truly, therefore

lowlily, of ourselves.

But it may be objected, if this be the Christian

TaTreivocj^poavvi], if it springs out of and rests on the

sense and the confession of sin, how does this agree

with the fact that our Lord could lay claim to this

grace and say, " I am meek and lowly in heart "

{Ta7r€Lvb<; Trj /capBia, Matt. xi. 29) ? The answer is,

that for the sinner raireivoippoo-vvr) involves the

confession of sin, for it involves the confession of

his true condition ; while yet for the unfallen crea-

ture the grace itself as truly exists, involving for

204 SYNO^^YMS OF THE

sucli the acknowledgment not of sinfulness, wliicli

would be untrue, but of creatureliness, of absolute

dependence, of having nothing, but receiving all

things of God. Thus this grace belongs to the high-

est angel before the throne, being as he is a crea-

ture, jea even to the Lord, of Glory Himself. In

his human nature He must be the pattern of all

humility, of all creaturely dependence; nor is it

otherwise than as a man that Christ thus claims to

be ra7T€iv6<^ ; for it will be observed that He does

not affirm Himself Ta7ret2yo9 to3 irvevfjcari (contrite

sinners are such, Ps. xxiii. 19), any more than Hecould speak of Himself as tttw^^o? tS TrvevfiaTc, his

TTvev/jba being divine; but He is raireLvo^ ry Kap-

Sla: his earthly life was a constant living on the

fulness of His Father's love ; He continually took

the place which beseems the creature in the pres-

ence of its Creator.

Let us seek now to put this word in its relation

with iTpaoTT]^. The Gospel of Christ did. not to so

great an extent rehabilitate Trpaorr}^ as it had done

Ta7reLvo(f)poavv7j, and this, because the word did not

need rehabilitation in the same degi'ee. ITpaor?;?

did not require to be turned from a- bad sense to a

good, but only to be lifted up from a lower good to

a higher. This indeed it did need ; for no one

can read Aristotle's account of the Trpdo^; and of

irpaoTQ]^ {Ethic. Nic. iv. 5), mentally comparing this

NEW TESTA^IENT. 205

with the meaning which we attach to the words,

and not feel that revelation has given to them a

depth, a richness, a fulness of significance which

they were very far from possessing before. The

great moralist of Greece set the irpaoTTj^ as the mid-

dle virtue between the opyiXoTTj^ and the aopyrjala,

with however so much leaning to this last that it

might very easily run into this defect ; and he finds

the irpaorr)'; worthy of praise, more because by it a

man retains his own equanimity and composure

(the word is associated by Plutarch, De Frat. Am.18, with fierptoirdOeLa)^ than from any nobler reason.

Keither does Plutarch's own pretty little essay, Ilepl

dopyi]aLa<;, rise anywhere to a higher pitch than this,

though we might perhajDS have expected something

higher from him. The word is opposed by Plato

to djpLOTT)'^ {Symjp. 197 ^) ; by Aristotle to %aXe7ro-

tt;? {Hist. Anhn. ix. 1) ; by Plutarch to diroro/xia

{J)e Lib. Ed. 18) ; all indications of a somewhat su-

perficial view of its meaning.

Those Christian expositors who will not allow

for the new forces at work in sacred Greek, who

would fain limit, for instance, the vrpao? of the InTcw

Testament to such a sense as the word, when em-

ployed by the best classical writers, would have

borne, will deprive themselves and those who accept

their interpretation of very much of the deeper

meaning in Scripture ; on which subject, and with

206 SYNONYMS OF THE

reference to this very word, see some excellent ob-

servations by F. Spanlieim, Dubia Evangelica^ vol.

iii. p. 39S. The Scrij^tnral TrpaoTq^ is not in a man's

outward behaviour only ; nor 3'et in his relations to

his fellow-men ; as little in his mere natural dispo-

sition. Rather is it an inwrought grace of the soul

;

and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards

God (Matt. xi. 29 ; Jam. i. 21). It expresses that

temper of spirit in which we accept his dealings

with us without disputing and resisting ; and it is

closely linked with the raTreLvo^poavvrf, and follows

close upon it (Eph. iv. 2 ; Col. iii. 12), because it is

only the humble heart which is also the meek ; and

which, as such, does not fight against God, and

more or less struggle and contend with Him.

This meekness however, which is first a meek-

ness in respect of God, is also such in the face of

men, even of evil men, out of the thought that these,

with the insults and injm-ies which they may inflict,

a,re permitted and used by Him for the chastening

and purifying of his peoj^le. This was the root of

David's TrpaoTT;?, when on occasion of his flight

from Absalom Shimei cursed and fluna: stones afc

him— the thought, namely, that the Lord had bid-

den him (2 Sam. xvi. 11), that it was just for him to

suffer these things, however unjust it might be for

the other to inflict them ; and out of like convic-

tions all true Christian Trpaor??? must spring. He

NEW TESTAMENT. 207

that is meek indeed will know himself a sinner

among sinners ; or, if in one case He conld not know

Himself such, jet bearing a sinner's doom ; and

this will teach him to endure meekly the provoca-

tions with which they may provoke him, not to

withdraw himself from the burdens which their sin

may impose upon him (Gal. vi. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25;

Tit. iii. 2).

The TTpaoTT]^ then, if it is to be more than mere

gentleness of manner, if it is to be the Christian

grace of meekness of spirit, must rest on deeper

foundations than its own, on those namely which

the Taireivocjipoavv'q has laid for it, and it can only

continue, while it continues to rest on these. It is

a grace in advance of raireLvotppoavvr}^ not as being

more precious than it, but as presujDposing, and as

unable to exist without it.

xliii.- rpaoT7]^j e7n€L/c6La.

Ta7r€Lvo(j)poavvrj and iTneUeLa are in their mean-

ings too far apart to be fit objects of synonymous

discrimination ; but Trpaorrj^, which stands between

them, holds on to them both. Its points of contact

with the former have just been considered ; and for

this purpose its own exact force was sought to be

20

S

SYNONYMS OF THE

seized. Without going over this ground anew, we

may now consider its relation to the latter. Of

67rL€iK€ia, it is not too much to say that the mere

existence of such a word is itself a signal evidence of

the high development of ethics among the Greeks. ^

Derived from clkco, eoiKa^ ' cedo,' it means properly

that yieldingness which recognises the impossibility

which formal law will be in, of anticipating and

providing for all those cases that will emerge and

present themselves to it for their decision ; which,

with this, recognises the danger that ever waits

upon legal rights, lest they should be pushed into

moral wrongs, lest the ' summum jus ' should prac-

tically prove the 'summa injuria;' which therefore

urges not its own rights to the uttermost, but going

back in part or in the whole from these, rectifies

and redresses the injustices of justice.*^ It is in this

way more truly just than strict justice would have

been ; SUatov koI ^eknov tivo<; BiKalov, as Aristotle

^ No Latiu word exactly and adequately renders it; 'dementia

'

sets forth one side of it, ' sequitas ' another, and perhaps 'modestia

'

(by which the Vulgate translates it, 2 Cor. x. 1) a third ; but the

word is wanting which should set forth all these excellences re-

conciled in a single and a higher one.

' This aspect of iTrieUeia must never be lost sight of. Seneca

(Be Clem. ii. 7) well brings it out: Kihil ex his facit, tanquam

justo minus fecerit, sed tanquam id quod constituit, justissimum

sit ; and Aquinas : Diminutiva est pceuarum, secundum ration'^m

rectam;quando scilicet oportet, et in qiiibus oportet.

NEW testa:ment. 209

expresses it {Ethic. Nic. v. 10. 6) ; being indeed,

again to use his words, iiravopOco^a vofiov^fj

iWel-

irei hid to Ka66\ov :^ and lie sets the dfcpi/SoSLKaio^^,

the man who stands up for the utmost tittle of his

rights, over against the eVtet«:?J?. Plato defines it

{Def. 412 ^), hiKaiwv koI o-vfKpepovTcov eXdrrcoa-L^.

The archetype and pattern of this grace is to

be found in God. All his goings back from the

strictness of his rights as against men ; all his

allowing of their imperfect righteousness, and giv-

ing of a value to that which, rigidly estimated,

would have none ; all his refusing to exact extreme

penalties (Wisd. xii. 18 ; 2 Mace. x. 4 ; Ps. Ixxxv.

5 : OTb av^ Kvpc€j ^/97;iTT09 fcal e7neLKr]<; kol iroXve-

Xeo? : cf Plutarch, Coriol. 24 ; Pericles^ 39 ; Ccesar,

5T) ; all his remembering whereof we are made,

and measuring his dealing with us thereby; wemay contemplate as eTneUeia upon his part ; as it

demands the same, one toward another, upon ours.

The greatly forgiven servant in the parable (Matt,

xviii. 23) had known the eirieUeLa of his lord and

^ Daniel, a considerable poet, but a far greater thinker, has in

a poem addressed to Lord Chancellor Egerton a very noble passage,

which may be regarded as an expansion of these words; indeed it

would not be too much to say that the whole poem is written in

honour of iTrie'iKsta- or ' equity,' as being

"tlie soul of law.

The life of justice, and the spirit of right."

210 SYNONYl^IS OF THE

king; the same therefore was justly expected from

him. The word is often joined with (fiiXavOpai'jTla

(Polybius, V. 10. 1 ; Philo, Be Yit Mos. i. 36

;

2 Mace. ix. 27); with fiaKpo6vfjiia (Clemens Rom.

1 ^p. 13) ; and, besides the passage in the l^ew

Testament (2 Cor. x. 1), often with irpaoTT)^ : as by

Plutarch, Pericles^ 39 ; Ccesar^ 57 ; cf. Pyrrh. 23;

De Prof. Virt. 9.

The distinction existing between these two,

iTneUeta and 7rpa6Tr]<i, Estius, on 2 Cor. x. 1, seizes

in part, although he does not exhaust it, saying

:

Mansuetudo [Trpaorr]^] magis ad animum, eTneUeta

vero magis ad exteriorem conversationem pertinet;

cf. Bengel : irpaoTrj^ virtus magis absoluta, eTneUeia

magis refertur ad alios. Aquinas too has a fine

and subtle discussion on the relations of likeness

and difference between the graces which these

words severally denote {Siunm. Theol, 2* 2% qto.

157): Utrum Clementia et Mansuetudo sint peni-

tus idem. Among other marks of difference he

especiall}^ urges these two ; the first that in iTneUeia

there is always the condescension of a superior to

an inferior, while in irpaorrj^ nothing of the kind is

necessarily implied : Clementia est lenitas supe-

rioris adversus inferiorem ; mansuetudo non solum

est su23erioris ad inferiorem, sed cujuslibet ad quem-

libet ; and the second, that which has been already

brought forward, that the one grace is more pas-

KEW TESTAMENT. 211

sive, the other more active, or at least that the

seat of the irpaorri'; is in the inner spirit, while the

iirteUeLa must needs embody itself in outward acts :

Differunt ab invicem in quantum dementia est

moderativa exterioris punitionis, mansuetudo pro-

prie diminuit passk)nem iree.

KXeTTTT/? and Xyarrj^i occur together John x. 1,

8;

' cf. Obad. 5 ; Plato, Pol. i. 351 c ; and their

meanings coincide so far that the one and the other

alike appropriate what is not theirs, but the /cXeTrrT??

by fraud and in secret (Matt. xxiv. 43 ; John xii. 6

;

cf. Exod. xxii. 2 ; Jer. ii. 26) ; the Xrjari]^ by vio-

lence and openly (2 Cor. xi. 26; cf. Ezek. xxii. 9;

Jer. vii. 11 ; Plutarch, De Sujper. 3 : ov (j^o^elrai,

Xrjara^ 6 ol/covpayv) ; the one is the * thief and steals,

the other the ' robber ' and plunders, as his name,

from \7]i<; or Xeia (as our own ' robber,' from ' raub,'

booty), sufficiently declares. They are severally

the 'fur' and 'latro' of the Latin. Our translators

^ Tliey do not constitute there a tautology or rhetorical ampli-

fication ; but as Grotius "well gives their several meanings: JFur

[kActtttjs] quia venit ut rapiat alienum ; latro [Xtia-Trjs'] quia tit

occidat, ver. 10.

212 SYNONYMS OF THE

have always rendered KkkirTrj^s by 'tliief;' it would

have been well, if they had with the same consist-

ency rendered Xijarr)^ by ' robber ;

' but, while they

have done so in some places, in more they have

not, rendering it also by ' thief,' and thus effacing

the distinction between the words.

We cannot indeed charge them with any over-

sight here, as we might those who at the present

day should render \r]aTrj<^ by ' thief.' Passages out

of number in our Elizabethian literature make it

abundantly clear that there was in their day no

such strong distinction between ' thief and ' rob-

ber ' as now exists. Thus Falstaff and his company,

who with open violence rob the king's treasure on

the king's highway, are ' thieves ' throughout Shak-

sj)eare's Henry IV. Still there are several places

in our Yersion, where one cannot but regret that

we do not read 'robbers' rather than 'thieves.'

Thus Matt. xxi. 13: "My house shall be called

the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of

thieves ;" so we read it ; but it is ' robbers ' and not

'thieves' that have dens or caves. Again, Matt,

xxvi. 55: "Are ye come out as against a thief

w^ith swords and staves for to take me ? "—but it

w^ould be against some bold and violent robber

that a party armed Avith swords and clubs would

issue forth, not against a lurking thief. The poor

traveller in the parable (Luke x. 30) fell not among

NEW TESTAMENT. 213

^thieves,' but among 'robbers;'- bloody and vio-

lent men, as by their treatment of him they plainly

declared.

'No jDassage however has suffered so seriously

from this confounding of 'thief and 'robber' as

the history of him, whom we are used to call ' the

penitent thief;' the anterior moral condition of

whom is probably very much obscured for us, and

set to a great extent in a wrong light, by the asso-

ciations which naturally accompany this name. It

is true that in St. Luke's account of the two that

are crucified with Jesus, the one obdurate, the other

penitent, the w^ord Xrja-rij? does not occur any more

than K\e7rT7]<; : they are styled generally KaKovpyoc,

' malefactors;

' and only from the earlier Evangel-

ists their more special designation as Xrjarai has

been drawn. In all probability they both belonged

to the band of Barabbas, who for murder and in-

surrection had been cast with his fellow insurgents

into prison (Mark xv. 7). He too was a \rjarrjs

(John xviii. 40), and yet no common malefactor, on

the contrary 'a notable j)risoner' {oeafiio^; e7rla7}/jLo<;,

Matt, xxvii. 16). i^ow when we consider the en-

thusiasm of the Jewish populace on his behalf, and

combine this with the fact that he had been cast

into prison for an unsuccessful insurrection, keej)-

ing in mind too the condition of the Jews at this

period, with false Chi'ists, false deliverers, every

214 SYN0NY3*IS OF THE

day starting up, we can hardly doubt that Barab-

bas was one of those stormy zealots, who were ever-

more raising anew the standard of resistance against

the Roman domination ; flattering and feeding the

insane hopes of their countrymen, that they should

yet break the Koman yoke from off their necks.

These men, when hard pressed, would betake them-

selves to the mountains, and there live by plunder,

—if j)ossible, by that of their enemies, if not, by

that of any within their reach. The history of

Dolcino's ' Apostolicals,' of the Camisards in the

Cevennes, makes sufficiently clear the downward

progress by which they would not merely obtain,

but deserve to obtain, the name of ' robbers.' Bythe Romans they would naturally be called and

dealt with as such ; nay, in that great perversion

of all moral sentiment which would find place at

such a period as this was, the name, like ' klept

'

among the modern Greeks, would probably cease

to be dishonorable, would scarcely be refused by

themselves.

Yet of how different a stamp and character

would many of these men, these last protesters

against a foreign domination, be likely to be from

the mean and cowardly purloiner, whom we call

the thief. The bands of these Xrjarai^ while they

would number in their ranks some of the worst,

would probably include also some that were ori-

NEW TESTAMENT. 215

glually of the noblest sj^irits, of the nation—even

though thej had miserably mistaken the moral

necessities of their time, and had sought to work

out by the wrath of man the righteousness of God.

Such a one we may well imagine this penitent

XyaTTJ^i to have been. Should there be any truth

in such a view of his former condition,—and cer-

tainly it would go far to explain his sudden conver-

sion,—it is altogether kept out of sight by the name' thief ' which we have given him ; and whether

there be any truth in it or not, there can be no

doubt that he would be more accurately called,

' the penitent rollerI!

§ Xlv. ifXvVW^ vllTTO}, Xovo).

We have but the one Euglish word, ' to wash,'

with which to render these three Greek. We must

needs confess here to a certain poverty, seeing that

the three have severally a propriety of their own,

—one which the writers of the ]N"ew Testament

always observe,—and could not be promiscuously

and interchangeably used. Thus TrXvvetv is always

to wash inanimate things^ as distinguished from

living objects or persons;garments most fi-equently

{e^fjuaraj Homer, II. xxii. 155 ; I/jlcltlov, Plato,

216 SYNONYMS OF THE

Charm. 161 e ; and in the Septuagint continually

;

so aroXd^:, Hev. vii. 4) ; but not exclusively these,

which some have erroneously asserted, as witness

the only other occasion where the word occurs in

the 'New Testament, being there employed to sig-

nify the washing or cleansing of nets (BUrva, Luke

V. 2). When the Psalmist exclaims, TrXvvov /uue

airo T7]<i dvo/jLLa^ (Ps. 1. [li.] 3 ; cf. ver. 9), these

words must not be cited in disj)roof of this asser-

tion that only of things, and not of persons, ifXvveLv

is used ; for the allusion to the hyssop which fol-

lows j)resently after, shows plainly that David had

the ceremonial aspersions of the Levitical law pri-

marily in his eye, which aspersions would find

place upon the garments of the unclean j)erson

(Lev. xiv. 19 ; Numb. xix. 6), however he may have

looked through these to another and better sprink-

ling beyond.

NlirreLv and Xovecv, on the other hand, express

the washing of living persons ; although with this

difference, that vLTrrecv (which displaced in the later

period of the language the Attic vl^etv) and z/t^/ra-

a-dat almost always express the washing of a part

of the body,—the hands (Mark vii. 3), the feet

(John xiii. 5 ; Plutarch, Thes. 10), the face (Matt. vi.

17), the eyes (John ix. Y), the back and shoulders

(Homer, Od. vi. 221) ; while Xovecv, which is not so

much ' to wash 'as 'to bathe,' and XovaOat, or in

NEAV TESTAMENT. 217

common Greek XoveaOac, ' to bathe oneself,' imply

always, not the bathing of a part of the body, but

of the whole : XeXov/xevoo to aco/xa, Heb. x. 23 ; cf.

Acts ix. 37 ; 2 Pet. ii. 22 ; Eev. i. 5 ; Plato, jPhcecl

115 a. This limitation of VLTrreiv to persons as

contradistinguished from things, which is always

observed in the Xew Testament, is not without

exceptions, although they are very unfrequent,

elsewhere ; thus, in Homer 11. xvi. 229, SeVa?

:

Ocl. i. 112, TpuTre^af; : Lev. xv. 12, aKevo^. A sin-

gle verse in the SejDtuagint (Lev. xv. 11) gives us

all the three words, and all used in their exact pro-

priety of meaning : Kal oacov eav ay^rjrai, 6 yovop-

pvr]<; Kal ra? %et/3a9 ov vevLiTTai vSarc, rrXwel

Ta ifidrta, Kal Xo uaeTat to acofia vSaTt.

The passage where it is most important to mark

the distinction between the last considered words,

the one signifying the washing of a part, and the

other the washing of the whole, of the body, and

where certainly our English version loses some-

thing in clearness from not possessing words which

should note the change that finds place in the origi-

nal, is Johnxiii. Ij: '' He that is washed [6 XeXov-

/jb€vo<;'] needeth not save to vxish \y l-^^r a a a i\ his

feet, but is clean every whit." ^ The foot-washing

^ The Latin labours under iLe same defect; tlius in the Vulgate

it stands : Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet. De Wette

10

218 SYNOi^YMS OF THE

was a symbolic act. St. Peter had not perceived

this at the first, and, not perceiving it, had ex-

claimed, " Thou shalt never wash my feet." But

so soon as ever the true meaning of what his Lord

was doing flashed upon him, he who had before

refused to suffer Him to wash even his feet, now

asked to be washed altogether :" Lord, not my feet

only, but also my hands and my head." Christ re-

plies, that it needed not this ; Peter had been al-

ready made partaker of the great washing, of that

forgiveness which reached to the whole man ; he

was \€Xov/jbivo<;, and this great absolving act did not

need to be repeated, as, indeed, it was not capable

of repetition :" Now ye are clean through the word

which I have spoken nnto you" (John xv. 3). But

while it was thus with him, he did need at the same

time to wash Ms feet {vlyjraaOat tov<; TroSa?), ever-

more to cleanse himself, which could only be

through suffering his Lord to cleanse him from the

defilements which even he, a justified, and in part

also a sanctified man, should gather as he moved

through a sinful world. The whole mystery of our

justification, which is once for al^ reaching to every

need, embracing our whole being, and our sanctifi-

cation, which must daily go forward, is wrapped

has sought to preserve the variation of word: Wer gehadet ist, der

braucht sich nicht als an den Fiissen zu waschen.

isEW TESTAMENT. 219

up in the antithesis between the two words. This

Augustine has expressed clearly and well {In Ev.

Joli. xiii. 10) : Homo in sancto quidem baptismo

totus abluitur, non j^rseter pedes, sed totus omnino

:

veruntamen cum in rebus humanis postea vivitur,

utique terra calcatur. Ipsi igitur humani affectus,

sine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quasi

pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur

Quotidie ergo j)edes lavat nobis, qui interpellat pro

nobis : et quotidie nos opus habere ut pedes lave-

mus in ipsa Oratione Dominica confitemur, cumdicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.

§ xlvi.—^w?, </)e')"yo?, cpcoaryjp, \v')(vo<;, Xafxird'^.

All these words are rendered either occasion-

ally or always, in our version, by 'light;' thus

(/)w?. Matt. iv. 16 ; Eom. xiii. 12 ; and often;^ey-

709, Matt. xxiv. 29 ; Mark xiii. 24 ; Luke xi. 33,

being the only three occasions upon which the word

occurs ; (pcoarijp, Phil. ii. 15 ; Eev. xxi. 11, the only

two occasions of its occurrence ; Xu;^z^o?, Matt. vi.

22 ; John v. 33 ; 2 Pet. i. 19, and elsewhere ; though

also often by ' candle,' as at Matt. v. 15 ; Rev. xxii.

5 ; and Xa/ivra?, Acts xx. 8, but elsewhere by ' lamp,'

220 SYNOKYMS OF THE

as at Matt. xxv. 1 ; Eev. viii. 10 ; and by ^ torch,'

as at John xviii. 3.

Hesjchius and the old grammarians distinguish

between (pm and ^eyyo? (which were originally

one and the same word), that (^&)9 is the light of the

sun or of the day, ^eyyo? the light or lustre of the

moon. Any such distinction is very far from being

constantly maintained even by the Attic writers

themselves, to whom it is said more peculiarly to

belong ; thus in Sophocles alone ^ey^yo^ is three or

four times applied to the sun {Antig. 800 ; Ajax,

654, 840 ; Tracliin. 59Y) ; while in Plato we meet

^co? o-eXrjvr}? {Pol. vii. 516 h; cf. Isa. xiii. 10 ; Ezek.

xxxii. Y). Still there is truth in that which the

grammarians have observed, that <peyyo<; is predomi-

nantly applied to the light of the moon or other

luminaries of the night (Plato, Pol. vi. 508 c), (/)a)?

to that of the sun or of the day. 'Nov is it unwor-

thy of note that this, like so many other finer dis-

tinctions of the Greek language, is thus far observed

in the New Testament, that on the only occasions

when the light of the moon is mentioned, (j>eyjo<; is

the word employed (Matt. xxiv. 29 ; Mark xiii. 24

;

cf. Joel ii. 10; iii. 15), as (j)m where that of the sun

(Kev. xxii. 5). Prom what has been said it will

follow that </)w? and not ^eyyo^., is the true antithe-

sis to aKOTo^ (Plato, Pol. vii. 518 a ; Matt. vi. 23

;

1 Pet. ii. 9) ; and generally that the former wdll be

NEW TESTAMENT. 221

the more absolute word ; thus Hab. iii. 4, koX c^iy-

yo? avTov [rod Geou] a)<; cf)co<; earat. (See Doder-

lein, Led. Synon. yoL ii. p. 69).

^coaryjp, it has been already observed, is ren-

dered ' light ' in our version, on the two occasions

upon which it occurs. The first of these is Phil,

ii. 15: "Among whom ye shine as lights in the

world" (o)? (jycocrTrjpe^; ev Koafiw). It would be

difficult to improve on this rendering, while yet it

fails to mark with all the precision which one would

desire the exact similitude which tlie Apostle in-

tends. The (f>coaTr]p€? here are undoubtedly the

heavenly bodies, (' luminaria,' as the Yulgate has

it well, ' Himmelslichter,' as De Wette), and mainly

the sun and moon, the 'lights,' or 'great lights'

(= ' luces,' Cicero, poet.), of which Moses speaks.

Gen. i. 11, 16 ; at which place the Septuagint has

(f>coarrjp€^ for the Hebrew ni^5<'3. Cf. Ecclus. xliii.

7, where the moon is called (pcoanjp : and Wisd.

xiii. 2, where (^cc>aTrjpe<; ovpavov is exactly equiva-

lent to (j)coaTrjpe<; ev Kocr^w at Phil. ii. 15; which

last is to be taken as one j^hrase, the K6cr/jLo<; being

the material world, the arepeofxa or firmament, not

the ethical world, which has been already expressed

by the yevea aKoXta kol SLearpa/jL/jbevT].

So also, on the second occasion of the word's

appearing, Eev. xxi. 11, where we have translated,

" Jler light [6 (pcoarrjp avrrjs;^ was like unto a stone

222 SYNONYMS OF THE

most precious," it would not be easy to propose

anything better; and the authors of our version

certainly did well in going back to this, Wiclifs

translation, and in displacing "Aer shining^'^ which

has found place in the intermediate versions, and

which onust have conveyed a wrong impression to

the English reader. Still, "her liglit" is not quite

satisfactory, being not wholly unambiguous. It,

too, onay present itself to the English reader as, the

ligiit which the Heavenly City diffused ; when, in-

deed, (f)W(jT->]p means, that which diffused light to

the Heavenly City, its luminary, or light-giver.

What this light-giver was, we learn from ver. 23 :

"the Lamb is the light thereof;" 6 Xvx^o^ avrrj^

there being = 6 (fxoarrjp avTrj<; here.

In res^^ect of Xv^^o^ and Xa/jLird^, it may very

well be a question whether the actual disposition

made by our translators of the words which they

had at their command was the best which could have

been adopted. If instead of translating XafiTrd^

' torch ' on a single occasion (John xviii. 3), they

had always done so, this would have left 'lamj3,'

now aj)propriated by Xafiird^, disengaged. Alto-

gether dismissing ' candle,' they might have ren-

dered Xv)(yo<; by 'lamp,' in all, or certainly very

nearly all, the passages where it occurs. At i^resent

there are so many occasions where ' candle ' would

manifestly be ina23propriate, and where, therefore.

NEW testa:ment. 223

tliey are obliged to fall back on ' ligbt,' tliat the

distinction between 6(o<; and \v')(yo<i nearlj, if not

quite, disappears in our version.

The advantages of such a re-arrangement of the

words appear to me not inconsiderable. In the first

place, the English words would more nearly repre-

sent the Greek originals : Xv^J^o^ is not a candle

(' candela,' from ' candeo,' the white wax light, and

then any kind of taper), but a hand-lamp fed with

oil ; while Xa^Tra? is not a lamp at all, but a torch,

and this not merely in the purer times of the lan-

guage, but also in the later Hellenistic Greek as

well (Polybius, iii. 93. 4; Herodian, iv. 2; Judg.

vii. 16, 20) ; and so, I believe, always in the l^ew

Testament. In proof that at Kev. viii. 10, Xafiird^

should be translated ' torch,' (' Fackel,' De Wette,)

see Aristotle, De Muiid. 4. And even in the para-

ble of the Ten Yirgins it would be better so. It

may be urged, indeed, that there the Xa/xTraSe? are

nourished with oil, and must needs therefore be

lamps. A quotation, however, from Elphinstone

{History of India, vol. i. p. 333), will show that in

the East the torch, as well as the lamp, is fed in

this manner. He says :" The true Hindu way of

lighting up is by torches held by men, who feed

the flame with oil from a sort of bottle " [the a<y-

ryelov of Matt. XXV. 4] " constructed for the pur-

pose."

224 SYNONYMS OF THE

It would not be difficult to indicate more pas-

sages than one, wliicli would be gainers in perspicu-

ity by sucli a rearrangement as has been proposed,

especially by marking more clearly, wherever this

were possible, the diiierence between- ^w? and Xv-

X^o<;. Thus 2 Pet. i. 19 is one of these ; but still

more so John v. 35. "We there make our Lord to

say. of the Baptist, " He was a burning, and a shin-

ing light^^— the words of the original being, eKelvo^

rjv 6 Xv-^vok KatofjLevo'; koX (paivcov. The Vulgate

has rendered tliem better : Ille erat hicerna ardens

et liiceiis ; not obliterating^ as we have done, the

whole antithesis between Christ, the ^w? aXrjOivov

(John i. 8), the (/)c3? i/c (pcoro^j the Eternal Zig/it,

which, as it was never kindled, so should never be

quenched, and the Baptist,, a lani/p tindled by the

hands of Another, in whose light riien might for a

Beas.on rejoice, and which was then extinguished

again. It is not too much to say, that in the use

of Xvxvo^liere and. at l.Pet. i, 19,,being here tacitly

contrasted with <pm, and there openly with (f)wa<^6-

po^, the same opposition is intended, only now

transferred to the highest sphere of the spiritual

world, which the poet had in his mind when he

wrote,—

" JSTiglit's candles are burnt out, and jocund Day

Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops."

liTEw testa]!ji:nt. 225

§ xlvii.—X"P^^5 eXeo?.

Of %apt9 we have the following definition (Aris-

totle, Rhet. ii. 7); earw hrj %«/3t9 KaO' fjv 6 excov

Xijerai %a/)fci^ virovpyeiv tc5 Seo/juiva), /jlt] clvtI t^z^o?,

fjL7]B^ Iva ri, avrw tS virovpyovvTi^ dW^ 'Iva i/ceivw tl.

The word ' is often found associated with e\eo?

(1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; Tit. i. 4 ;- 2 John 3) ; it is

in this association only, and as signifying the Divine

compassion, that I wish to speak of it here. But

though standing in closest inner as well as outer

connexion, there is this difference between them,

that %a/3t? has reference to the sins of men, eXeo? to

their misei'y. God's %«/?fc?, his free grace and gift,

is extended to men, as thej are guilty, his eXeo? is

extended to them as they are miserable.' The

lower creation may be, and is, the object of God's

eXeo9, inasmuch as the burden of man's curse has

redounded also upon it (Job xxxviii. 41 ;- Ps. clxvii.

9 ; Jonah iv. 11), but of his xa/of-? man alone ; he

only needs, he only is capable of receiving it. In

^ It will be seen that. the Stoic definition of ^K^os, to wit, Kvtvt]

&S iirl ava^lcas KaKoiraOovvTi (Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 63; cf. Aris-

totle, Ehet. ii. S), breaks down at two points when transferred tc

the Divine compassion, which has not grief in it, and is very far

from being limited to those who suffer unworthily,

10*

226 SYNONYMS OF THE

the Divine mind, and in the order of our salvation

as conceived therein, the eXeo? precedes the %a/3i?.

God so loved the world with a pitying love (herein

was the eXeo?) that He gave his only-begotten Son

(herein the %a/ot9) that the world through Himmight be saved : cf. E]3h. ii. 4 ; Luke i. Y8, Y9. But

in the order of the manifestation of God's purposes

of salvation the grace must go before the mercy, the

Xapi'^ must make way for the eXeo?. It is true that

the same persons are the subjects of both, being at

once the guilty and the miserable;yet the right-

eousness of God, which it is just as necessary should

be maintained as his love, demands that the guilt

should be done away before the misery can be as-

suaged ; only the forgiven can, or indeed may, be

made happy ; whom He has pardoned. He heals;

men are justified before they are sanctified. Thus

in each of the apostolic salutations it is first %a/3i9,

and then eXeo?, which the Apostle desires for the

faithful (Eom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i.

3 ; Eph. i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2, &c.) ; nor could the order

of the words be reversed.

NEW TESTA3IENT. 227

§ xlviii.

—

^eoaepr}^^ eucre/^/J?, ev\a/3i]<;, dprjdKo^,

SeLacSalficov.

©eoae^rj^, an ej)itliet three times applied to Job

(i. 1, 8 ; ii. 3), occurs only once in the Xew Testa-

ment (John ix. 31) ; and Oeoae/Seia no oftener (1 Tim.

ii. 10). Evae^T]^, with the words related to it, is of

more frequent occurrence (1 Tim. ii. 2 ; Acts x. 2;

2 Pet. ii. 9, and often). Before we proceed to con-

sider the relation of these to the other words of this

group, a subordinate distinction between them-

selves, may fitly be noted ; this, namely, that in

Oeoae^rj^ is necessarily implied by its very deriva-

tion, i^iety toward God^ or toward the gods / while

evaefBr}^^ often as it means this, yet also may mean

piety in the fulfilment of human relations, as toward

parents or others (Euripides, Elect. 253, 254), the

Avord according to its etymology only implying

' worship ' (in our older use of the word) and rever-

ence well and rightly directed. It has in fact the

same double meaning as the Latin ' pietas,' which

is not merely ^justitia adversiim Deos'^ (Cicero, DejVat. Deor. i. 41) ; a double meaning, which, deeply

instructive as it is, yet proves occasionally embar-

rassing in respect of both one word and the other

;

so that on several occasions Augustine, when he has

228 SYNONYMS OF THE

need of an accurate nomenclature, and is nsing

'pietaSj' pauses to observe that lie means by it what

evak(3eia indeed may mean, but OeoaejBeia alone must

mean, namely, piety iaztT^TZ-^ycj/Z {De Civ. Dei, x. 1

;

Enchir.V). . At-thesarae^time.'eL'o-eySeta, which the

Stoics' defined. eiTiafrifL'qOeoivdepaTfeLa^ (Diogenes

Laertius,-vii/r.'64j 1-1 9),^ and which was not 'eYery

reyerencing. of- thfe^ gods, -but a reverencing of them

arifJit \ev)y is -the- staaiditig word to express this

piety, both in itself^ (Seiic^phon, Ages. iii. 5 ; xi. 1),

and as it is the true meart between a^e6T-7;?-and Set-

o-i8ai/itoj//a (Plutarch, De Suj^erst. lit).

rWhat fmgjii otherwise have required to be, said

on euXa^TJ?' lias D&^a,a;lready anticipated in part in

considering' the- word euid^etct (see j). 58); yet

something further may be added here. It was

there observed how the word passed over from sig-

nifying caution and carefulness in resj^ect of human

things to the same in respect of divine; the Ger-

man ' Andacht ' had very much the same history

(see. Grimm, Wdrterhiich, s. v.). The only three

places in the Kew Testament in which evXa^/]? oc-

curs are these, Luke ii. 25 ; Acts ii. 5 ; viii. 2. "We

have uniformly translated it ' devout ;' nor could

any better equivalent be offered for it. It will be

observed .that on all these occasions it is used to ex-

press Jewish, and, as one might say, Old Testament

piety. On the first it is applied to Simeon (BLKaLo<;

NEW TESTAMENT. 229

Koi evXa^rjs)',on the second, to those Jews who

came from distant parts to keep the commanded

feasts at Jerusalem ; and on the thn-d there can

scarcely be a donbt that the aVSpe? euXa/Set? who

carry . Stephen to his burial, are not, as might at

first sight app'ear, Christian brethren; but devout

Jews, who showed by this com-ageous act of" theirs,

as by their great lamentation over the slaughtered

sainty that, they abhorred this deed of blood, that

they separated themselves in sj)irit from it, and

thus, if it might be, from all- the" judgments which

it would bring down on the city of those murderers.

Whether it was also further given them to' believe

en the-Grxicified, who had such witnesses as Ste-

phen, we are not told ; we may well presume that

it was.

'- If we keep in mind that in that mingled fear

and love which together constitute the piety of mantoward God, the Old Testament placed its empha-

sis on the fear, the Xew places it on the love, thougli

there was love in the fear of God's saints then, and

there must be fear in their love now, it will at once

be evident how fitly et'Xa/S/J? was chosen to set forth

their piety under the Old Covenant, who like Zach-

arias and Elisabeth " were righteous before God,

walking in all the commandments and ordinances

of the Lord blameless," (Luke i. G), and leaving

nothing willingly undone which pertained to the

230 SYNONYMS OF THE

circle of tlieir j)i'escribed duties. For this sense of

accurately and scrupulously jDcrforming tliat wliicli

is prescribed, with the consciousness of the danger

of slipping into a careless negligent performance

of God's service, and of the need therefore of anx-

iously watching against the adding to or diminish-

ing from, or in any other way altering, that which

is commanded, lies ever in the words euXa/S^j?, evXd-

jSeta, when used in their religious significanceJ

Plutarch, in more than one very instructive

passage, exalts the evXdfieia of the old Komans in

divine matters as contrasted with the comparative

carelessness of the Greeks. Thus in his Coriolanus

(c. 25), after other instances in proof, he goes on to

say :" Of late times also they did renew and begin

a sacrifice thirty times one after another; because

they thought still there fell out one fault or other

in the same ; so holy and devout were they to the

gods " {roLavTrj jiiev evXa/Seca tt^o? to Oelov 'Pco-

fiaLcov).^ Elsewhere, he pourtrays ^milius Paulus

(c. 3) as eminent for his evXa/Seta. The jpassage is

' Cicero's well-known words deducing * religio ' from ' relegere

'

may be here fitly quoted {De Nat. Deor. ii. 28) : Qui omnia quse

ad cultum deorum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent, et tanquam

relegerent, sunt dicti rcligiosi.

^ l^ortKs Plutarch, p. 195. Cf. Aulus Gellius, ii. 28: Veteres

Romani .... in constituendis religionibus atque in diis immortali-

bus animadvertendis castissimi cautissimique.

NEW TESTAMENT. 231

long, and I "vrill only quote a portion of it, availing

myself again of old Sir Thomas North's translation,

wliicb, thongli somewhat loose, is in essentials cor-

rect :" When he did anything belonging to his

office of priesthood, he did it with great experience,

judgment and diligence ; leaving all other thoughts,

and without omitting any ancient ceremony, or

adding to any new ; contending oftentimes with his

companions in things which seemed light and of

small moment ; declaring to them that though we

do presume the gods are easy to be pacified, and

that they readily pardon all faults and scapes com-

mitted by negligence, yet if it were no more but

for respect of the commonwealth's sake they should

not slightly or carelessly dissemble or pass over

faults committed in those matters " (p. 206).

But if in €u\al3r)^ we have the anxious and the

scrupulous Avorshipper, who makes a conscience of

changing anything, of omitting anything, being

above all things fearful to offend, we have in Opija--

Ko<;, which still more nearly corresponds to the Latin

' religiosus,' the zealous and diligent performer of

the divine offices, of the outward service of God.

OprjaKEia (= * cultus,' or perhaps more strictly,

' cultus exterior'), is predominantly the ceremonial

service of religion, the external forms or body, of

which evai^eia is the informing soul. The sugges-

tion that the word is derived from Orpheus the

232 SYNONYMS OF THE

Thracian, who brought in the celebration of, re-

ligious mysteries, etymologically worthless, yet

points, and no doubt truly, to the celebration of

divine offices as the fundamelital notion of the

word.

How finely chosen then are these words ^By St.

James (i. 26, 27), and how rich a meaning do they

contain.' " If any man," he would say, "seem to

himself to be OpriaKo^^ a diligent observer of the

offices of religion, if any man would render a pure

and undefiled OprjaKeCa to God, -let' him know that

this consists not in outward lustrations or ceremonial

observances ; nay, that there is a better dprja/cela

than thousands of rams and rivers of oil, namely to

do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly

with his God ". (Mic. vi. 7,- 8) ; or, in the Apostle's'

own language, " to vi^it the widows and orphans in

their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from

the world " (cf. Matt, xxiii. 23). He is not herein

affirming, as we sometimes hear, these offices to be

the sum total, nor yet the great essentials, of true

religion, but declares them to be the body, the

OpTja-Kela, of which godliness, or the love of God, is

the informing soul. His intention is somewhat ob-

scured to the English reader from the fact that ' re-

ligious ' and ' religion,' by which we have rendered

OprjaKo^ and OpTjcTKela, possessed a meaning once

which they now possess no longer, and in that

NEW TESTAMENT. 233

meaning are here employed. St. James wonld, in

tact, claim for tlie Christian faith a superiority over

the old dispensation, in that its very Oprja-Kela con-

sists in acts of mercy, of love, of holiness, in that

it has light f07' its garment, its very rohe being

righteousness; herein how much nobler than that

old, whose OprjaKela was merely ceremonial and

formal, whatever inner truth it might embody.

These observations are made by Coleridge {Aids to

Reflection, 1825, p. 15), who at the same time com-

plains of our rendering of 6pr]aKo<i and OprjcrKela as

erroneous. But it is not so much erroneous as ob-

solete ; an alternative indeed which he has himself

suggested as its possible justification, though he

was not aware of any such use of ' religion ' in the

time that our version was made as w^ould bear out

the translators. Milton however will at once sup-

j)ly an example of a passage in which ' religion ' is

used to express an outward ceremonial service, and

not the inner devotedness of heart and life to God.

Some of the heathen idolatries he characterizes as

being"adorned

Witli gay religions full of pomp and gold."

Paradise Lost, b. i.

And our Homilies will supply many more : thus in

that Against Peril of Idolatry : " Images used for

no religion, or superstition rather, we mean of none

234: SYNONYMS OF THE

worshipped, nor in clanger to be worshipped of any,

may be suffered." A very instructive passage on

the merely external character of OprjaKeia^ which

also I am confident our translators intended to ex-

press by their ' religion,' occurs in Philo {Quod Det.

Pot. Insid. Y) ; having repelled those w^ho would

fain he counted among the evae^eh on the score of

divers washings, or costly offerings to the temple,

he proceeds : TreTrXdvrjrac yap kol ovro<; t^9 Trpo?

euae^eiav oSov, 6 prja K€ lav avrl oa i6t7]to<; rjyov-

fievo^. The readiness with which OprjaKeia declined

into the meaning of superstition, service of false

gods (Wisd. xiv. 18, 27; xi. 16; Col. ii. 18), itself

indicates that it had more to do with the form, than

with the essence, of piety. Thus Gregory Nazian-

zene {laiiib. xv.)

:

&p7i(TKelav ol8a Kat rh Sai/xoi/oov (Tefias,

'H S' €U(T e fie la irpoaKvuiqais Tpid'Bos.

To come now to the concluding word of this

group. AeLcnSalficov, and SecacBaifMovla as well, had

at first an honourable use ; as perhaps also ' super-

stitio ' and ' superstitiosus ' had ; at least there seems

indication of such in the use of ' superstitiosus ' by

Plautus {Citrcul. iii. 27 ; Amphit. i. 1. 169). The

philosophers first gave an unfavourable significance

to SeLaiSaLfiovla. So soon as they began to account

fear a disturbing element in piety, which was to be

XEW testa:mext. 235

eliminated from the true idea of it (see Plutarch,

De And. Poet. 12 ; and Wjttenbach, Animadd. in

Plut. i. 997), it was natural, indeed almost inevita-

ble, that they should lay hold of the word which

by its very etymology implied and involved fear

{heiaihaifjLovla^ from BelSco), and should emj)lo3^ it to

denote that which they disallowed and condemned,

namely, the ' timer inanis Deorum ' (Cicero, J)e Xat.

Deor. i. 41) ; in which phrase the emphasis must

not be laid on ' inanis ' but on ' timor ;' cf. Augus-

tine, De Civ. Dei, vi. 9 : Yarro religiosum a super-

stitioso ea distinctione discernit, ut a superstitioso

dicat timeri Deos ; a religioso autem vereri ut j)a-

rentes ; non ut hostes timeri.

But even after they had thus turned BeLaiSatfio-

vCa to ignobler uses, to the being, as Theophrastus

defines it, heCkla irepl to SacfiovLov, it did not at once

and altogether forfeit its higher significance. In-

deed it remained to the last a fieaov. Thus we not

only find BeiatSal/icov (Xenophon, Ages. xi. 8 ; Cyroj).

iii. 3. 58), and hucriBaiiiovIa (Polybius, vi. 56. 7;

Josephus, Antt. x. 3. 2), in a good sense ; but I ampersuaded also employed in no ill meaning by St.

Paul himself in his great discourse upon Mars' Hill

at Athens. He there addresses the Athenians, " I

perceive that in all things ye are w? BetaiSaL/jLovea-

T€pov<; " (Acts xvii. 22), which is scarcely, " too su-

perstitious," as we have rendered it, or " allzu aber-

236 SYNONYMS OF THE

glaiibiscli,' as Lutlier ; but rather ^ religiosiores,' as

Beza, 'sehr gottesfurclitig,' as De Wette, have

given it.^ For mcleed it was not St. Paul's manner

to affront his auditors, least of all at the outset of a

discourse ; not to say that a much deeper reason

than a mere calculating prudence would have hin-

dered, him, I believe, from expressing himself thus,

namely, that he would not, any more than his great

Master, quench the smoking flax, or deny the reli-

gious element which was in heathenism. Many in-

terpreters, ancient as well as modern, agree in this

view of the intention of St. Paul; for example,

Chrysostom, who makes SeiaiSacfiovearepov^ = evXa-

pearepov^, and takes the word altogether as praise.

Yet neither must we run into an extreme on this

side. St. Paul selects with' finest tact and, skill,

and at the same time with most perfect truth, 'a

word which shaded off from praise to blame ; in

which he gave to his Athenian hearers the honour

which was confessedly their due as zealous worship-

pers of the superior powers, so far as their know-

ledge reached, being evae^eardrov; iravTwv rcov

'EXk7]v(ov, as Josephus calls them ; but at the same

time he does not squander on them the w^ords.of

very highest honour of all, reserving them for the

^ Bengel {in loc): dsiaidaifxwv, verbum per se fietrou, ideoque

arabiguitatem liabet clementem, et exordio huic aptissimam.

NEW TESTANIENT. 237

true worshippers of tlie true and living God. Andas it is thus in the one passage where BetatBalfjiwv

occurs, so also in the one where heiathaLfiovla is to

be found (Acts xxv. 19). Festus may speak there

with a certain latent slight of the Seco-iSai/jLovia, or

overstrained way of worshipping God ('Gottesve-

rehrung' De Wette translates it), which he con-

ceived to be common to St. Paul and his Jewish

accusers, but he would scarcely have called it a

' superstition ' in Agrippa's face, for it was the same

which Agrippa himself also held (Acts xxvi. 3. 27),

whom certainly he was very far from intending to

insult.

§ xlix.

—

K\rj/jLa, K\dSo<;.

These words are related to one another by de-

scent from a common stock, derived as they both

are from kXclco, ' frango ; ' the fragile character of

the branch, the ease with which it may be broken

off, to be planted or grafted anew, constituting the

basis and leading conception in both words. At

the same time there is a distinction between them,

this namely, that KXijfia (= 'palmes') is especially

the branch of the vine {a/nTreXov KXri/j.a, Plato, jPoI.

i. 353 a) ; while kXciSo^ (= ' ramus ') is the branch,

not the larger arm. of any tree ; and this distinction

2d» SYNONYMS OF THE

is always observed in the l^ew Testament, where

fc\rj/jLa only occurs in the allegory of the True Yine

(John XV. 2, 4, 5, 6 ; cf. Xum. xiii. 24 ; Ps. Ixxix.

12 ; Ezek. xvii. 6) ; while we have mention of the

kXciSoc of the mustard-tree (Matt. xiii. 32), of the fig-

tree (Matt. xxiv. 32), of the olive-tree (Kom. xi. 16),

and generally of any trees (Matt. xxi. 8 ; cf. Ezek.

xxxi. 7; Jer. xi. 16 ; Dan. It. 9).

[I have put together, and in a concluding article subjoined, as

there are readers to whom they may be welcome, a few passages

from different authors, intended to have illustrated some other

synonyms of the IS^ew Testament, besides those which, after all, I

have found room to introduce into this voluaie. I have also added

to these one or two quotations, which would have found their fit-

ter places earlier in the book.]

a. ')(^p7](rT6Tr)<;j ayaOoiavvrj.— Jerome {Conim. in

Ep. ad Gal. v. 22) : Benirjniias sive suavitas, quia

apud Grsecos 'x^prjaroTTj^ utrumque sonat, virtus est

lenis, blanda, tranquilla, et omnium bonorum apta

consortio ; invitans ad familiaritatem sui, dulcis al-

loquio, moribus temperata. Non multum toyiitas

[ajaOcccrvvrj] a benignitate diversa est;quia et ipsa

ad benefaciendum videtur exposita. Sed in eo dif-

NEW TESTAMENT. 239

fert;quia potest bonitas esse tristior, et froiite seve-

ns moribus irrugata bene quidem facere et prtestare

quod poscitur ; non tamen suavis esse consortio, et

sua cunctos invitare dulcedine.

/5. eXTTt?, iriari^.— Augustine {Encliirid. 8): Est

itaque fides et malarum rerum et bonarum : quia

et bona creduntur et mala ; et lioc fide bona, non

mala. Est etiam fides est prgeteritarum rerum, et

prsesentium, et futurarum. Credimus enim Chris-

tum mortuum; quod jam j)r8eteriit; credimus sedere

ad dexteram Patris;quod nunc est : credimus ven-

tm-um ad judicandum;quod futurum est. Item

fides et suarum rerum est et alienarum. Nam et se

quisque credit aliquando esse coepisse, nee fuisse

utique sempiternum ; et alios, atque alia ; nee so-

lum de aliis hominibus multa, qujB ad religionem

pertinent, verum etiam de angelis credimus. Sjyes

autem non nisi bonarum rerum est, nee nisi futura-

rum, et ad eum j)ertinentium qui earum spem ge-

rere perhibetur. Quee cum ita sint, propter has

caussas distinguenda erit fides ab spe, sicut vocabu-

lo, ita et rationabili differentia. Nam quod adtinet

ad non videre sive quae creduntur, sive qu£e spe-

rantur, fidei speique commune est.

y. aylaiia^ atpeac;.— Augustine {Oo7i. Crescon,

Don. ii. Y) : Schisma est recens congregationis ex

240 SYNONYMS OF THE

aliqua sententiarum diversitate dissensio ; hmresis

autem scliisma inveteratnm.

h. fiaKpoOu/jLLa, irpaoTTj^.— Tlieopljjlact {In Gal.

V. 22) : fiaKpoOvfiia 7rpa6T7]ro<i iv tovtw Sok€l irapa

rfi jpa<f)fj 8ca(f)6p6LV, tm top fxev ^aKpoOufJLOv ttoXvv

ovra iv cf)pov7]a€Cj fiy 6^eci)<; a\Xa cr')(oK.fi eTrniOevat

r7]V TrpoaTjKovaav Slktjv tS irralovrL, rov he irpaov

a(f)L6vai iravTciTTacnv. ,

e. \oLBop6co, p\aa(f)rjiJbew.— Calvin {Comvi. in iV.

T. ; 1 Cor. iv. 12) : J^otandum est discriinen inter

lisec duo participia, XoiSopovfjLevoi, koI ^Xaa-(f>7}iuLovfjLe-

voL. Qnoniam Xoihopla est asperior dicacitas, qw2d

non tantum perstringit hominem, sed acriter etiam

mordet, famamqne aperta contumelia sugillat, non

dubium est qnin XoiSopelv sit maledicto tanquam

aculeo vuLnerare liominem;proinde reddidi male-

dictis lacessiti. B\aa(f)7jfila est apertius probrum,

qiium quispiam graviter et atrociter proscinditur.

f- '^vxi'Koi;, aapKLKo^.— Grotiiis {Annott. in N.

T. ; 1 Cot. ii. 14) : Non idem est -v/ru^t/cs? avQpw-

iTo^ et aapKLK6<;. Wv^lko^; est qui bumange tantmn

rationis luce ducitur, crapKLKOf; qui corporis afiecti-

bus gubernatur ; sed plerunque 'yjrvxifcoL aliqua in

parte sunt o-ap/ccKol, ut Gr^ecorum 25biloso2)bi scorta-

tores, puerorum corruptores, glorise aucupes, male-

NEW TESTAMENT. 24:1

dici, invidi. Yernm liic (1 Cor. ii. 14) nihil aliud

designatur qiiam liomo liuniana tantum ratioue ni-

tens, quales erant Judseorum plerique et pliilosophi

Grsscorum.

rj. fjLeravoico, /xeTa/ieXo/jLat.— ^engel (^G7i07no7i JV.

T. j 2 Cor. vii. 10) : Yi etjmi f^erdvoca proprie est

mentis, fjuerafieXeia voluntatis;qnod ilia sententiam,

lisec solicitudinem vel potins studium mutatnm di-

cat. . . . Utrumqne ergo dicitur de eo, quern facti

consiliive poenitet, sive poenitentia bona sit sive

mala, sive malse rei sive bonce, sive cum mutatione

actionum in posterum, sive citra earn. Yerunta-

men si usum spectes, /nera/ieXeta plerunque est /jl6(7gv

vocabulum, et refertur potissimum ad actiones sin-

gulares : fierdvoia vero, in !N. T. prsesertim, in bo-

nani partem sumitur, quo notatur poenitentia totius

vitse ipsorumque nostri quodammodo : sive tota ilia

beata mentis post errorem et peccata reminiscentia,

cum omnibus affectibus eam ingredientibus, quam

fructus digni sequuntur. Hinc fit ut /jberavoetv sagpe

in imperativo ponatur, fiera/jieXetaOaL nunquam

:

ceteris autem locis, ubicunque fxerdvoLa legitur,

fiera/ieXeLav possis substituere ; sed non contra.

6. alcoVj Koa-fio^.— Bengel {Ih. Epli. ii. 2): al(£>v

et Koaiio<^ differunt, 1 Cor. ii. 6, 12 ; iii. 18. Ille

liunc regit, et quasi informat : Koap.o^ est quiddam

11

24:2 SYNONYMS OF THE

exterius ; alcov subtiliiis. And again (Epli. vi. 12)

:

Koafio^ mundus, in sna extensione : alwv secnlum,

prsesens mundus in sua indole, cursu et censu.

L, iTpav^, rjcrvxco^-— Bengel {Ih. 1 Pet. iii. 4):

Mansuetus \TTpav<;'\j qui non turbat : tranquillus

\j]crvyio^^ qui turbas aliorum, superiorum, inferi-

orum, iequalium, fert placide . . . Adde, mansuetus

in affectibus : tranquillus in verbis, vultu, actu.

K. Qv7]t6^^ veKpo^.— Olsliausen {Opusc. Theoll. p.

195): NeKpo<; vocatur subjectum, in quo sejunctio

corporis et animse facta est : 6v7]to<;, in quo fieri

potest.

\. /c6ha(Ti9, TL/jLopia (see p. 4T).— Aulus Gellius,

vi. 14 : Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas

existimatum est. Una est quae vovOeaia, vel KoXa-

aL<;, vel irapalvecn^ dicitur ; cum poena adhibetur

castigandi atque emendandi gratia ; ut is qui for-

tuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera

est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt,

rcfJLcopLav appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est,

cum dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est pec-

catum, tuenda est, ne prsetermissa animadversio

contemtum ejus pariat, et bonorem levet: idcirco-

que id ei vocabulum a conservatione lionoris fac-

tum putant.

NEW TESTAMENT. 243

fi. a<^ecrt?, Trdpeai^; (seeJ).

163).— Fritzsche {Ad

Horn. vol. i. p. 199) : Conveniunt in hoc [ac^eo-t?

et Trdpeai^l quodsive ilia, sive liaec tibi obtigerit,

nulla peccatorum tuorum ratio habetiir ; discre-

pant eo, quod, liac data, facinorum tuorum poenas

nunquam pendes ; ilia concessa, non diutius nullas

peccatorum tuorum poenas lues, quam ei in iis con-

nivere placuerit, cui in delicta tua animadvertendi

jus sit.

246 INDEX.

INDEX OF OTHEE WOEDS.

Abbild .

Admonitio

^mulor .

ayairi] .

aKoKaffTOS •

Altare .

a/JLiWa

Amohvayevurjffis

Aiidacht

'AVTIKIXTWV

Antipater

avTiOeos

Ara

aperr)

Aiisterus

Avarice

Beflecken

Bcnignitas

j8c'i/0oj .

Beriihren .

Besudeln

Betasten .

Biography

Bonitas

Pw/JLOS .

Bosewiclit

PAGE

INDEX. 24:9

250 INDEX.

Date Due